Request: 2nd VO Checkmark for Differentiated Operator


I’d like to formally request that the VO Committee consider allowing an additional VO checkmark for a second operator that is differentiated from the first.

In my case, my first operator uses the six MEV relays that are whitelisted by Rocketpool. This operator is marketed towards those who would like to migrate their Rocketpool nodes to SSV. Because of MEV correlation, it has proven to not be an attractive operator for general (non-Rocketpool) stakers that want full MEV compatibility.

I have now spun up a second operator with all MEV relays to be used by those general stakers, but I can’t attach my VO status to it without a second checkmark.

In this case, I do not feel there is much risk of operator centralization, because the two operators are designed for two separate use cases. It is unlikely that a single validator would want to use both operators in a single cluster.

I feel that making this change would encourage more diverse operator setups, allowing for more operators that are compatible with Rocketpool or other protocols/uses.

Thank you for your consideration.