Are rate limit abuses in governance able to induce downtime slashes? Yes, rate limiting is a critical governance parameter that, if abused, could induce downtime slashes. Many AVSs have rate limits for operations like submitting transactions or heartbeats to prevent spam. A malicious governance proposal could set these rate limits to an impractically low level, effectively throttling all operators and preventing them from performing their required duties. If operators cannot submit their attestations or proofs within the required time frame because of an artificially imposed bottleneck, they would be slashed for liveness failures. This demonstrates how even a seemingly minor technical parameter, when controlled by governance, can be weaponized to cause widespread and "artificial" slashing across the entire network.
- 0 replies
- 0 recasts
- 0 reactions
Can governance proposals induce malicious slashing? Yes, governance proposals can be weaponized to induce malicious slashing. A malicious actor with sufficient voting power could propose and pass a governance update that retroactively changes slashing conditions. For example, they could redefine a previously valid action as a slashable offense and then penalize operators who performed that action in the past. This is a "governance attack" that abuses the system's upgradeability. To mitigate this, reputable AVSes implement timelocks on governance decisions, allowing operators time to exit if a malicious proposal passes, and they strive to make slashing conditions immutable or only upgradable under extremely high thresholds.
- 0 replies
- 0 recasts
- 0 reactions
Are rate limit abuses in governance able to induce downtime slashes? Yes, if governance controls network rate limits (e.g., message throughput, call frequency, or API quotas), malicious or reckless governance activity could throttle validators’ ability to meet uptime requirements — indirectly triggering downtime slashing. For example, restricting AVS-related RPC calls or pushing sudden bandwidth caps could prevent timely participation in consensus. Similarly, introducing denial-of-service risk through misconfigured rate governance could affect only a subset of validators, concentrating slashing events. To mitigate this, AVSs should separate slashing-relevant operations from governable throughput settings or introduce emergency overrides. Transparent governance simulations and slashing-exemption windows during rate policy changes are also advisable.
- 0 replies
- 0 recasts
- 0 reactions