# \[Proposal\] Sequencer Selection: Fernet

**URL:** <https://forum.aztec.network/t/proposal-sequencer-selection-fernet/533>\
**Category:** Aztec\
**Tags:** rfp, sequencers\
**Created:** [June 1, 2023, 5:29pm UTC](https://forum.aztec.network/t/proposal-sequencer-selection-fernet/533 "2023-06-01T17:29:39Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 14

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![spalladino](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/forum.aztec.network/spalladino/32/32_2.png) [@spalladino](https://forum.aztec.network/u/spalladino)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2023, 11:46am UTC](https://forum.aztec.network/t/proposal-sequencer-selection-fernet/533/14 "2023-09-25T11:46:09Z")

</div>

> [@Anon](#):
>
> The current design is vulnerable to L1 proposer collusion. L1 proposers can buy L2 blocks with a single low VRF score, by censoring L2 proposers during the proposal phase.

If I understand correctly, you mean that the L1 proposer can simply choose what L2 proposals to include, right? If that happens, then the VRF scoring is rendered useless, but I’m not sure it affects liveness: it just changes the selection protocol to that of a [based rollup](https://ethresear.ch/t/based-rollups-superpowers-from-l1-sequencing/15016), which is not necessarily bad I believe, since the barrier of entry to be an L1 proposer is also designed to be low. What do you think?

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.aztec.network/t/proposal-sequencer-selection-fernet/533)._