In what case we can loose 100% with a slash?

Its very hard to answer. Its probably a very dynamic decision. Its happening if the validator engages in activities such as double-signing, censorship, or other forms of misbehavior that violate the network.

"Can I die because a plane falls on my head? Yeah" Well the possibilities are more or less the same... but it can happen

stupid answer!!

Don't insult my friend, if you don't like my answer there are other ways to express it.

Your answer is an insult to investors!

I disagree, this was a plausible analogy.

This is a answer!

So Accept this answer and leave me alone. I am not responsible for your nominations, I am not responsible for Stake.Works validators. I am here to respond to my users and I give those responses as I see fit.

Unfortunately, If this persists then we'll have to stop participating as nominators.There won't be a reason to support the network anymore.

Now, here's a bit of my dark humor: Some people enter a casino fully aware that they'll leave with a total loss. Yet, the chance of gaining something is greater than avoiding the risk. It's similar to staking and the possibility of a potential loss.

👍 😆

I thought slash would affect approximately 2% of the nominators' bag now people are talking about 100%. This is really frustrating Bene.

I never talked about 100%. It is usual just a very tiny percentage.

Nominate is an option, of course. But, in more than 2 years only 2 slashes have occur, and the afected users have lost less than 2% of their stash, so I think it's not a reason to leave nominations. Simply double check always where you put your nomination.

Hence I said other people. Thank you for clarity Bene.

Thanks for your input. I always nominate validators active on this platform.

You should understand that the possibility exist, but it is almost impossible. But I can't tell you that that possibility doesn't exist, and then one day it happens to someone and you tell me "you said that couldn't happen."

I'm 100% aware of that.We are currently facing the most difficult time in crypto.We don't need more negative news especially investors who are trying to support Reef project through staking Consensus.

But I'm not giving you bad news, I'm just explaining to you what are the rules of the game in which you participate. Just as I helped create the calculator you use to find out how much you can win, it is also my responsibility to explain how much and how you can lose 🤷🏻‍♂

And, as a personal opinion, I will tell you that for me this is not the most difficult time in crypto, rather it is one of the best, and it is because I can invest in good projects at very low prices, and projects with little basis and without fundamentals fall and leave the path clear for good projects to gain strength and when the bull market arrives we can all make our investment very profitable. But of course, that is my point of view, each one has a different one.

I think punishing the nominators because of the YOU (Validators) is unfair though. It should be 99.9% punishment on Validators then 0.1% on Nominators. 🙈

Man, validators are active because you nominated them, you can't blame others for what you have chosen. And validator's stake it's also penalized the same way as nominator's stake. But anyway you can try to convince the developers to change the game rules 🤷🏻‍♂

Nominators are behaving, A validator who doesn't behave should be punished 99.9%.

Nominators have it in their hands, select good validators for a good network, thats your responsibility when it comes to governance. If the selection ends being harmful for the network, nominators have to be published for their selection 🤷🏻‍♂️

99.9% of you validators can be harmful.

Potentially. Potentially…

I don't understand your complains, you are not obligated to nominate anyone, it's optional

What's the point buying adequate Reefs and not staking them to earn rewards?

What's the point of buy BTC and not staking them to get rewards?

I told you, Reef should be different than all of them.Who cares about btc.

You can not expect to earn something without taking a risk. There are responsibilities like in everything. If I go boxing I can get in better shape and improve my skills at the same time I got hit in my liver and was 15h in emergency room. What I want to say is, there is always a risk involved in everything what we humans, no pain no gain.

You want something that is a copy of something else to be different from everything else and that is impossible, because it is a copy.

They said Reef is reliable. So ,let it be reliable as expected.

Thats why we should have different and independent validators. To make in decentralized and more reliable.