Hi @Yuting,
You mentioned very good points here. I would like to share my opinion.
Point #1 (increasing operator fee adjustment) I think there’s consensus but then we have to agree on a specific increment.
Point #2, you’re right, when an operator changes its fee, the update is recorded on-chain and validators must actively check it through the SSV contract or tools like SSV Explorer or SSV Scan cause there are no direct notifications. This also ties into our concern about how stakers can be notified when an operator in their cluster goes unresponsive.
I think it actually opens up another dilemma. On SSV, it makes sense for cluster owners to stay pseudo-anonymous instead of having a direct public contact because Ethereum’s whole ethos is about decentralization and censorship resistance. If you tie validators to real identities or public social contacts, they could face legal, political or social pressure that distorts their validator decisions, on top of being exposed to attacks or judged by who they are instead of how well their node runs.
What really matters is transparent on-chain data, fees, performance, cluster updates, not someone’s personal or social info. That way stakers get the info they need while we keep Ethereum’s “code is law” spirit intact.
This is my opinion, I think this should be discussed more deeply. I believe the monitoring/alert suggestion is probably the best way to educate operators and soften the negative impacts of not having direct communication channels between operators and stakers.
Point #3 is also tricky because we have design limitations from the SSV protocol. I would like to refer you to the exchange I had here with @BumpyTale:
Comment #1:
Comment #2:
Comment #3:
Point #4 is interesting, but I’m afraid it would require significant development work.
Not saying I’ve got the full answer, just my vision of this complex ecosystem.