pNode policy changes and node issue support

In the post, we’d like to make an official announcement about changes of pNode policy as well as a plan for supporting node owners with node issues.

pNode policy changes

pNode is one of the most expensive products as it’s demanding too much resource for operation, customer support, etc that has been pulling us away from our focus - building a truly privacy blockchain. So we decided to:

  • Stop pNode production

  • Stop any support if somebody buys a pNode from another (you would take your own risk if you do so)

  • Stop supporting a pNode to go back to funded staking if it DID unstake. You can still stake using your own funds at any time. Let me give clarity to the decision, for every bulk of pNode sold, we prepared an amount of PRV as a rented funds. But once a pNode owner unstakes his/her node and restake with his/her own funds in order to take 100% earnings, it’s supposed that he/she did not need rented funds anymore so the funds would be moved and used for other purposes. Please note that the rented funds program was about to support a pNode owners in the initial setup, how can he/she demand another round of this sort of support if he/she could stake with his/her own funds and earn 100% rewards?

Plan for supporting node issues

As you may know, we’ve launched a Node monitor to help node owners understand how their nodes operate. So the next step is about to work together (both core devs and node owners) on issues if any.

Currently, there are two types of Incognito nodes, vNode and pNode.


It’s usually easier for us to figure out issues as node owners are likely technical people, fortunately, actions like accessing logs, restarting the node with the newest code, or even cleaning up data would be more familiar with these node owners. So just contact @Support if you have any issues.


We planned to support the above functions on Incognito app so that a pNode owner can send logs from his/her pNode to devs, restart the node with the newest code or reset data easily without requiring any technical knowledge. In some cases, it will also need to have a teamview session for further assistance.

Thanks for your support!


Thanks for posting this.

In my opinion, your assumption here is faulty. You assume that every unstake request is intentional AND fully informed. There are several scenarios to consider:

  • It is possible for a new and/or inexperienced operator to mistakenly unstake a pNode. This has been mitigated to some degree with a confirmation dialog in the app. But it still happens. These users are unlikely to have access to the necessary PRV to privately stake a pNode. These users would need to convert upwards of ~$4,500 into PRV to stake a newly purchased, mistakenly unstaked pNode. This seems unrealistic.

  • It is virtually impossible for a pNode – even ones that have been validating since the genesis block – to have generated enough PRV on their own to allow an operator to self-stake. Only a pNode operator operating a farm of pNodes would have generated enough PRV to stake a far smaller subset of those pNodes. The shortfall in PRV would therefore need to be sourced elsewhere. While this shortfall would not be as significant as in the above case, it will still be a sizeable amount of PRV.

  • I believe some fairly major misunderstandings with regards to slashing and the PRV stake exist:

  • Here @sjo114 states they unstaked their PRV because “slashing would be implemented shortly” and that posed a “capital risk [that] was not justifiable anymore”. I believe some users are assuming that slashing on Incognito will be similar to other crypto projects: staked funds, in totality or portion thereof, are forfeited to the project foundation/burned/Elon Musk/other stake holders, etc. However:
  • It is then possible some self-staked pNode operators have proactively unstaked pNodes due to misinformed assumptions. They fear a slashing event would risk some or all of their staked PRV, as is done with some other PoS protocols (Ethereum2, Tezos, Cosmos and Polkadot, et al). With more communication about the proposed slashing policy, it is altogether possible these users may have come to a different decision.

For the benefit of the community, I propose that requests for funded-restaking be reinstated for a period of six (?) months: until slashing has been implemented on the mainnet plus a few months. This will allow a longer period of time for pNode operators to prepare for mainnet slashing. The remaining new pNodes that have not yet shipped/joined the mainnet will also have a grace period for any unintentional unstake requests. Once slashing has been live on mainnet for a few months, and the initial issues sorted, then funded-restaking should be wound down with a two or four week announcement, not via a (until today) uncommunicated decision.


Maybe an even more direct warning screen could popup saying "This action can NOT be reverted. After confirming, you will need to provide 1,750 PRV ($xxxxx) yourself to activate the pNode.


There was an update on Incognito app for the warning yesterday @Jamie

1 Like

To throw in a relatively new comer perspective, a re-staking grace period allows those who seem to be motivated to sell pnodes a chance to do so, and those of us who are less-tech savvy but eager to support the project a venue to give unwanted pnodes new life.

I have no understanding of the costs associated with this kind of exchange on the backend for devs and core team, but it certainly seems there’s just as much demand on these forums to sell pnodes as there is to buy. Grace period just seems to help both sides of users continue to support the network.

Either way, appreciate the consideration and looking forward to seeing where things go.


It only says the node needs to be staked again, not by whom. Users could incorrectly assume Incognito will stake it.

I am not debating this for myself, my pNodes are already on own stake and I have no intention to change that. The message just needs to be more clear, more scary maybe, to prevent people from accidentally pushing the confirmation button. They need to know it is a final decision.


when you purchase the node it comes with the option to also fully stake.

if someone chooses to go back to what they purchased (not upgraded node with funded stake) it should be eligible at anytime.

what’s worse is you all are capable but won’t.

people bought the nodes when a comforting growth team was available to support, that no longer exists which makes this maneuver appear like theft.

the only somewhat rational thing to do is is give a few months timeframe and notifications about a timeframe expiration to go to funded stake, allowing people to go back to funded stake.

this is fraud/theft.
I’m starting to believe Andrey resigned because he didn’t have a choice. He’d probably be against this kind of treatment to supporters.


Andrey resigned because he is a marketing/growth guy. Shifting focus 100% from growth to development, left not much for him to do.

It would be great to have him back once “the product” is ready for real growth.

1 Like