# Nominator

New to Staking?

Nominators secure the Relay Chain by selecting good validators and staking DOT.

You may have an account with DOT and want to earn fresh DOT. You could do so as validator, which requires a node running 24/7. If you do not have such node or do not want to bother, you can still earn DOT by nominating one or more validators.

By doing so, you become a nominator for the validator(s) of your choice. Pick your validators carefully - if they do not behave properly, they will get slashed and you will lose DOT as well. However, if they do follow the rules of the network, then you can share in staking rewards that they generate.

While your DOT are staked by nominating a validator, they are 'locked' (bonded). You can receive new DOT in your account but you cannot stake as validator or transfer DOT away from your account. You can un-nominate at any time to stop staking your funds. Keep in mind that the un-nomination is effective in the next era, and that un-nominating does not automatically unbond your funds. There is an unbonding period of 7 days on Kusama and 28 days on Polkadot before bonded funds can be transferred after issuing an unbond transaction.

### Active vs. Inactive Nomination​

When you go to the Account actions under staking page, you should see your bonded accounts and nomination status. If not, you can follow this guide to configure it first. Your nominations will be effective in the next era; eras are roughly 6 hours on Kusama and 24 hours on Polkadot.

Suppose you have nominated five validator candidates, and three out of five were elected to the active validator set, then you should see two of your nominations as "waiting", and most likely one as "active" and the rest as "inactive". Active or inactive nomination means your nominated validators have been elected to be in the validator set, whereas waiting means they did not get elected. Generally, you will only have a single validator have an active nomination, which means that you are directly supporting it with your stake this era and thus potentially receiving staking rewards. Inactive nominators were validators that were elected for this era but which you are not actively supporting. Every era, a new election will take place and you may be assigned a different active nomination from among the validators you have selected.

If you are committing a very large amount of stake, then you may have more than one active nomination. However, the election algorithm attempts to minimize this situation, and it should not occur often, so you should almost always see only a single active nomination per era. See the section on Phragmén optimization for more details.

### Bags-list​

info

On Polkadot and Kusama, the instance of the pallet Bags-List is named as 'voterList'

Nominating accounts are placed in a semi-sorted list called bags-list. This sorting functionality is extremely important for the long-term improvements of the staking/election system. Bags-list allows up to nominators to set their intention to nominate, of which, the stake of the top nominators is considered for electing set that eventually determines the active validators. The bags-list can be previewed on Polkadot JS Apps > Network > Staking > Bags > All Bags.

### Minimum Active Nomination to Receive Staking Rewards​

Minimum DOT required to earn staking rewards

Minimum DOT required to submit intent to nominate is 10 DOT, but the minimum active nomination required to earn staking rewards is dynamic and may be much higher, which can be viewed on Polkadot JS Apps > Network > Staking > Targets page.

Bonding additional tokens or unbonding the staked tokens will automatically place the nominating account in the appropriate bag. While the system tries its best to ensure nominators are always represented in the correct bag, certain changes in bonded funds (e.g. a slash in the negative direction, or rewards in the positive direction) can cause an account to be in the wrong bag, and for scalability reasons the system will not automatically self-adjust.

voterList.putInFrontOf and voterList.rebag extrinsics

The nominator accounts in a bag are sorted based on their insertion order, not by their nomination stake. voterList.putInFrontOf extrinsic can be issued to move up in the bag, which might be very useful for the accounts in the last bag eligible for receiving staking rewards. Also, balance changes due to staking rewards or slashing do not automatically re-bag the account. Whenever applicable, Polkadot JS Apps UI prompts the nominator account to rebag or move-up and the instructions are available in this support article.

To demonstrate how bags-list works, let's imagine a simple bag system with 7 accounts and 3 bags:

Alice: 10 DOT, Bob: 11 DOT, Charlie: 15 DOT, Dave: 20 DOT, Eve: 100 DOT, Frank 1000 DOT, Georgina: 2000 DOT

Bag1: Max 2000, Min 1000 - Frank, Georgina

Bag2: Max 1000, Min 20 - Eve, Dave

Bag3: Max 20, Min 10 - Alice, Bob, Charlie

The bags are iterated based stake in decreasing order and within a bag, they are iterated on insertion order, not amount at stake. So if only five nominating accounts are picked for the electing set, it will be Frank, Georgina, Eve, Dave, Alice. Even though Alice has only 10 DOT, she is first in line in Bag3.

Charlie can put himself in front (move up in the bag) using the voterList.putInFrontOf extrinsic, since he has 15 DOT (more than Alice does at 10). Now if nothing changes for the next era, Frank, Georgina, Eve, Dave, and Charlie will get rewards. Bag3 now has: Charlie, Alice, Bob. The voterList.putInFrontOf extrinsic can be issued through Polkadot JS Apps UI by clicking on the Move up button.

Alice gets upset, but she cannot move herself up, since Charlie has more DOT than her. Bob could move himself in front of Alice, since he has 11 DOT (> 10), but he still wouldn't get rewards.

Let us consider a hypothetical scenario where Charlie set the staking rewards to be bonded automatically and Charlie's stash crosses 20 DOT after rewards from several staking eras. As changes in bonded balance due to staking rewards or slashing do not automatically re-bag the account, Charlie has to issue voterList.rebag extrinsic to place his nominator node in the right bag. The re-bag button will appear on Polkadot JS Apps UI if any of the nominator nodes in the bag needs to be re-bagged. This permissionless extrinsic can be signed and submitted by anyone on chain.

### Staking Election Stages​

"electable/electing", and "active".

• intention to nominate: an account that has stated the intention to nominate; also called simply a "nominator".
• electing nominator: a nominator who is selected to be a part of the input to the NPoS election algorithm. This selection is based on stake, and is done using the bags-list pallet.
• active nominator: a nominator who came out of the NPoS election algorithm backing an active validator. Staking rewards are received by top nominators, but when slashing occurs, all the active nominators backing the validator get slashed.

### Required Minimum Stake​

Due to the way the Phragmen algorithm generates the solution set, and due to the fact that the solution set must fit in a single block, a minimum number of DOT will be required to nominate with, in order to receive staking rewards, can change between the eras.

• min-intention-threshold: minimum stake to declare the intention to nominate. This parameter can be updated via on-chain governance and the most recent and up to date version can be found on chain state (select state query > staking > minimumNominatorBond)

• min-electing: minimum stake among the electing nominators. Since this is almost always the same as “min-active”, it might not be reported.

• min-active: minimum stake among the active nominators. If your stake falls below this dynamic threshold in a given era, you will not receive staking rewards for that era.

Thus, for nominator counters, we have:

• count of nominator intentions, and max possible nominator intentions ()
• count of electing nominators, and maximum possible electing nominators ()
• count of active nominators, and maximum possible active nominators ()

### Oversubscribed Validators​

Validators can only pay out to a certain number of nominators per era. This is currently set to but can be modified via governance. If more than nominators nominate the same validator, it is "oversubscribed", and only the top staked nominators (ranked by amount of stake) are paid rewards. Other nominators will receive no rewards for that era, although their stake will still be used to calculate entry into the active validator set.

Although it is difficult to determine exactly how many nominators will nominate a given validator in the next era, one can estimate based on the current number of nominators. A validator with only 5 nominators in this era, for instance, is unlikely to have more than in the next era. An already-oversubscribed validator with 1000 nominators this era, however, is very likely to be oversubscribed in the next era as well.

### The Election Solution Set​

Determining which validators are in the active set and which nominators are nominating them creates a very large graph mapping nominators to their respective validators. This "solution set" is computed off-chain and submitted to the chain, which means it must fit in a single block. If there are a large number of nominators, this means that some nominators must be eliminated. Currently, nominators are sorted by amount of DOT staked and those with more DOT are prioritized. This means that if you are staking with a small amount of DOT, you may not receive rewards. This minimal amount is dynamic based on the number of validators, number of nominators, amount nominated, and other factors.

### Receiving Rewards​

As long as you have nominated more than one validator candidate, at least one of them got elected, and you are nominating with enough stake to get into the solution set, your bonded stake will be fully distributed to one or more validators. That being said, you may not receive rewards if you nominated very few validator candidates and no one got elected, or your stake is small and you only selected oversubscribed validators, or the validator you are nominating has 100% commission. It is generally wise to choose as many trustworthy validators as you can (up to ) to reduce the risk of none of your nominated validators being elected.

Not receiving Staking Rewards?

To explore the possible reasons for not receiving staking rewards, check out the Staking FAQ

Rewards are lazy - somebody must trigger a payout for a validator for rewards to go all of the validator's nominators. Any account can do this, although in practice validator operators often do this as a service to their nominators. See the page on Simple Payouts for more information and instructions for claiming rewards.

### What to Take Into Consideration When Nominating​

There are many factors to consider when deciding which validator's to nominate. One useful tool for assisting in this process is the Staking Targets table. This displays potential validators in a table that can be evaluated and sorted using various metrics. Outlined below are the relevant columns to consider, followed by a brief description of each.

• payout: How recently the validator has made it's last reward payout to nominators.

• nominators: This column consists of two number values.

1. Amount of nominators currently bonded in the current era and considered active.

2. Total amount of nominators that nominated that validator.

• You may want to be cautious of validators with a high number of subscribers. A validator is considered oversubscribed when more than 'active' nominators are assigned to the validator. In this scenario only the top nominators will receive rewards. The remaining nominators will recieve nothing, however they can be slashed in the event that validator commits a slashable offence.

• Every nominator can select up to a maximum of validators, which contributes towards maximizing the probability of having the nominators stake applied to the validators active set. Nominating too few validators could result in the nominators losing their rewards when none of them make it to active set or when those Validator nodes stop validating. The election algorithm attempts to maximize the overall network stake, while minimizing the variance of the active stake across the validators. For additional information on the election process checkout the research behind nominated proof-of-stake.

• example: If nominator X has nominated validators A, B, C and D, but is actively only nominating validator B. The active count (left number) for nominator X is 1, counting B exclusively. The total or all count (right number) is 4, counting A, B, C and D.

validatorpayoutnominators
examplerecently1 (active) 4 (all)
• comm.: Total commission kept by the validator (100% means nominators will not receive a reward).

• total stake: The total amount of DOT tokens staked by all parties.

• own stake: The amount of DOT tokens the validator has put up as a stake.

• return: How profitable the validator has been.

A validator's commission is the percentage of the validator reward which is taken by the validator before the rewards are split among the nominators. As a nominator, you may think that the lowest commission is best. However, this is not always true. Validators must be able to run at break-even in order to sustainably continue operation. Independent validators that rely on the commission to cover their server costs help to keep the network decentralized. Some validators, operated by central exchanges etc., keep 100% of the commission to payout their staking service clients and therefore do not provide any rewards to external nominators. Commission is just one piece of the puzzle that you should consider when picking validators to nominate.

As a nominator, if you only want to know the profit each validator made for each era, you can go to the Targets section under the staking page by inputting the number of tokens you would like to stake to check it. Then, nominate those who have a higher profit. However, that does not guarantee the right way to evaluate the validators' overall performance.

It is worth taking into consideration "own stake" of a validator. This refers to the quantity of DOT the validator has put up at stake themselves. A higher "own stake" amount can be considered as having more "skin in the game". This can imply increased trustworthiness. However, a validator not having a large amount of "own stake" is not automatically untrustworthy, as the validator could be nominating from a different address.

### Filter Out Validators With Undesirable Traits​

On the Targets page, you can filter out validators that have traits that may indicate an issue with you nominating them. You can turn these filters on and off to help narrow down which validators you should nominate. It is important to note that these traits aren't necessarily "bad"; however, depending on your validator selection methodology, they may be characteristics that you would be interested in filtering.

• one validator per operator: Do not show groups of validators run by a single operator.
• comm. < 20%: Do not show any validators with a commission of 20% or higher.
• with capacity: Do not show any validators who are currently operating at capacity (i.e., could potentially be oversubscribed).
• recent payouts: Only show validators that have recently caused a payout to be issued. Note that anyone can cause a payout to occur; it does not have to be the operator of a validator.
• currently elected: Only show validators that are currently in the active set (i.e., they have been elected to produce blocks this era).
• with an identity: Only show validators that have set an identity. Note that this identity does not have to be verified by a registrar for the validator to show up in the list.

How the validator acted in the past may be a good indicator of how they will act in the future. An example of problematic behavior would be if a validator is regularly offline, their nominators most likely would get fewer rewards than others. More importantly, when many validators are unreachable, those nominators who staked with them will be slashed.

Thus, to be a smart nominator, it would be better to query their histories to see statistics such as blocks produced, rewards and slashes, and identity (if they have it set). Moreover, a nominator should do comprehensive research on their validator candidates - they should go over the validators' websites to see who they are, what kind of infrastructure setup they are using, reputation, the vision behind the validator, and more.

### Be Aware of The Risks of Single Operators with Multiple Validators​

Recall that slashing is an additive function; the more validators that are offline or equivocate in a given session, the harsher the penalties. Since validators that are controlled by a single entity are more at risk of a "synchronized" failure, nominating them implies a greater risk of having a large slash of your nominated funds. Generally, it is safer to nominate validators whose behavior is independent from others in as many ways as possible (different hardware, geographic location, owner, etc.).

### Avoiding Oversubscribed Validators​

If you are not nominating with a large number of DOTs, you should try to avoid oversubscribed validators. It is not always easy to calculate if the validator selected will be oversubscribed in the next session; one way to avoid choosing potentially oversubscribed validators is to filter out any that are at capacity on the Targets page.

Finally, if you have a very small amount of DOTs, you may not be able to have your nomination fit into the election set. The nominator to validator mapping has to fit in a single block, and if there are too many nominators, the lowest-staked nominations will be dropped. This value is obviously dynamic and will vary over time. If you review the lowest amount of nominations that are occurring on current validators, you can get a good idea of how many DOTs will likely be necessary to have your nomination earn you rewards. You can read the blog post "Polkadot Staking: An Update" for more details.