# \[Proposal\] - Staking Proving Network for Fernet

**URL:** <https://forum.aztec.network/t/proposal-staking-proving-network-for-fernet/2439>\
**Category:** Aztec\
**Tags:** rfp, provers\
**Created:** [October 20, 2023, 3:50pm UTC](https://forum.aztec.network/t/proposal-staking-proving-network-for-fernet/2439 "2023-10-20T15:50:44Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 12

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Anon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/47e85d/32.png) [@Anon](https://forum.aztec.network/u/Anon)\
**Post date:** [October 24, 2023, 11:58pm UTC](https://forum.aztec.network/t/proposal-staking-proving-network-for-fernet/2439/12 "2023-10-24T23:58:43Z")

</div>

I suggest slashing all sequencer+provers if a proof is missed.

This way, the cost to halt-bribe is sequencer stake, rather than sequencer-reward/prover-reward, and it improves cooperation incentives.

Remaining concerns:

- The threat of data withholding by sequencers/provers
  - even if unfavored in equilibrium, it may cause centralization pressure to distribute the risk

- A maximum halt-bribe of S is considerably lower than [PBS](http://forum.aztec.network/t/proposal-pbs-proposer-builder-separation/2283/6) (`S * block-rate * miss-frecency`)
- The security is S, but the slash is `S + S * N`
  - This is inefficient, and gives a multiplier of N advantage to economic adversaries (burn S to cause S\*N harm)

- High operating cost centralization effects on sequencers
  - This would be solved if Fernet adopts [L1 sequencing](http://forum.aztec.network/t/proposal-sequencer-selection-fernet/533/15)

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.aztec.network/t/proposal-staking-proving-network-for-fernet/2439)._