Adding the Panicbot.app Validator - ShortTheFomo Operator to the XRPLF dUNL

[xVet]

The XRPL dUNL needs more quality operators, people who demonstrated to care deeply, be active participants and have a track record to be reliable. Luckily there are many XRPL validators who stepped up and make excellent candidates.

Starting the progress to up the quality of operators i propose expanding the public good, XRP Ledger Foundation dUNL, by adding ShortTheFomo's Panicbot.app validator.

This Operator is a long time active contributor to the wider XRP Ledger community. By testing new amendments, building tools and services on https://threexrp.dev/ - running various systems and nodes. But also by participating in discussions around the XRPL.

The validator node is operational out of NL. The operator is located in Chile.

The TOML can be found here: https://panicbot.app/.well-known/xrp-ledger.toml

[LJ-XRPL]

This process is definitely still in the works, but to help the XRPLF board make an informed decision, it would be helpful if the operator could provide a bit more detail:

1. Hosting and Infrastructure

• Confirm that the node is independently hosted and not clustered with other dUNL validators to avoid centralization risks
• Clarify geographic and network distribution

2. Community Track Record

Please provide evidence that ShortTheFomo is an active and recognized contributor to the XRPL ecosystem, such as:

• Participation in amendment testing or protocol upgrades
• Contributions to open-source tools, infrastructure, or technical discussions
• Involvement in keynet or devnet test cycles

3. Operational and Security Practices

It would also be helpful to understand what best practices are in place, including:

• Key management (e.g. use of HSMs or cold storage for signing keys)
• Monitoring and alerting systems in use
• Incident response preparedness

4. Uptime and Performance

We'll also factor in validator uptime and responsiveness as part of the evaluation.

Thanks in advance — looking forward to the additional info.

[shortthefomo]

• independently hosted https://panicbot.app/.well-known/xrp-ledger.toml review the ASN
• geographic and network distribution also provided in TOML

• Participation in amendments Amendment fixReducedOffersV2 fixes issue #4937 rippled#5032
• Contributions Breakdown tab for payments and offercreates ripple/explorer#985 Network id validation stream and forwarding rippled#4921 and xApps built https://support.panicbot.app are a few
• Involvement test cycles fixReducedOffersV1 still not covering all cases and book blocking (Version: 2.1.0) rippled#4937

• Monitoring and alerting systems in use custom xApp https://support.panicbot.app/dao-vote

4

• validator has moved keys x1 over the years... FYI

hope that some what helps you.

[rippleitinnz]

This process is definitely still in the works, but to help the XRPLF board make an informed decision, it would be helpful if the operator could provide a bit more detail:

1. Hosting and Infrastructure

• Confirm that the node is independently hosted and not clustered with other dUNL validators to avoid centralization risks
• Clarify geographic and network distribution

2. Community Track Record

Please provide evidence that ShortTheFomo is an active and recognized contributor to the XRPL ecosystem, such as:

• Participation in amendment testing or protocol upgrades
• Contributions to open-source tools, infrastructure, or technical discussions
• Involvement in keynet or devnet test cycles

3. Operational and Security Practices

It would also be helpful to understand what best practices are in place, including:

• Key management (e.g. use of HSMs or cold storage for signing keys)
• Monitoring and alerting systems in use
• Incident response preparedness

4. Uptime and Performance

We'll also factor in validator uptime and responsiveness as part of the evaluation.

Thanks in advance — looking forward to the additional info.

Are you able to provide these details for the existing members of the dUNL or, if unable to, what steps are being taken to gather this information, for consistency?

[LJ-XRPL]

There is a scorecard in the works that is trying to evaluate this criteria where possible. This will be shared with the community for review.

What we have found challenging is that different participants may weight or value different things. E.G Responsiveness vs Open Source Contributions.

It often comes down to a set of qualitative metrics instead of purely quantitative.

We anticipate sharing more on this process for feedback after the xrplf.org DNS has been transferred to the new foundation on September 1st and the temporary freeze on additions / removals is complete.

[xVet]

We should aim for different islands of scorecards, what i mean is have a group of home hosted nodes, group of core protocol contributors, group of hub operators etc

The diversity will be amazing for the network. With one card for all operators we will essentially cultivate a list of operators that all look somewhat similar.

I believe our differences make us as a community stronger than the things we have in common.