The slashing incidents are extremely rare in Tezos, but the new staking mechanism implies a significant increase in the slashing amount. Could you please share the vision on the reason for increasing slashing parameters to 10% of the baker's frozen deposit (instead of the previous fixed sum of 640 tez)?

Moreover, what's the purpose of extending slashing penalties to stakers?

2 Answers 2


In fact, the slashing amounts are not meaningfully different under Oxford.

When a new cycle begins, the protocol computes a value for the amont at stake. Then:

  • double bake incurs a penalty of 10% of this value per double bake event (before oxford, it was 640 tez).
  • double attest (also known as double endorsement) incurs a penalty of 50% of this value - this did not change in oxford

We should distinguish between double-bake and double-attest. Double bake is much rarer than double attest, as you need to have baking rights at the exact time you are equivocating. But only two double-attest denunciations are enough to completely wipe your stake.

Most accidental equivocation is due to the operator having two identical baking setups connected to the network. In this case, the most likely scenario is that you would double-attest before you double bake, wiping 50% of your stake in the process (actually, probably 100% unless you switch your baker off really fast). This penalty has been in place since Ithaca and tenderbake. Notably, no slashing has happened since Ithaca.

The switch from 640 tez to 10% is technical in nature: due to the introduction of Adaptive Issuance toggle and the new staking mechanism, it was necessary to have a fraction rather than a fixed amount. 640 tez corresponds to 10% of the stake of a small baker. For a large baker, it is indeed more severe. But again: you are most likely to double-attest before you double bake, so it largely does not matter.

Moreover, what's the purpose of extending slashing penalties to stakers?

Stakers earn more than delegators, because they take more risk: they risk being slashed if their baker equivocates. In case of double bake, both baker and every staker gets slashed 10%. In case of double attest, they all get slashed 50% of this value.


Thank you so much for providing an answer. However, the response provided does not fully clarify the rationale behind the selection of a 10% threshold. Consequently, I would appreciate a more detailed explanation.

Specifically, I am interested in understanding why a lower percentage than 10% was not considered, especially if the intention was to establish a percentage rather than a fixed amount. It is worth emphasizing that there exists a substantial disparity in potential slashing amounts between small and large bakers.

  • Sure. The disparity is normal: large bakers earn more because they risk more. Sep 16 at 5:11
  • A percentage makes more sense than a fixed amount because the more stake you have, the more power you have, the more responsible you should be. This is for the preservation of the protocol. The rationale for 10% is as follows: we picked 11% because 620 tez is ~11% of 6,000 tez (minimal size baker). But it was changed to 10% to avoid a pathological side effect in the code in case of slashing+staking. Sep 16 at 5:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.