How NanoTicker scores representatives
The six measurements behind every health score, what each one measures, and why a representative holding less voting weight scores higher.
The health score sums six measurements and shows the total as a percentage. It estimates how useful a rep is to the network. Holding less voting weight scores higher, by design.
The six measurements
All six count equally, so a rep has to do well across all of them to score well.
Voting weight
A small share of online weight scores highest.
Not a measure of how well the node runs. The network is safer when many smaller reps share the weight.
Uptime
Consistently online scores highest. Recent downtime costs most, older outages fade.
Weight behind an offline node does not count.
Connected peers
A high peer count scores highest.
A well connected node hears blocks sooner and its votes travel faster.
Unconfirmed blocks
A near empty backlog scores highest. The score falls as it grows.
Blocks received but not cemented. A growing backlog means the node is falling behind.
Node version
Graded against the newest release of that node make.
The C++ and Rust nodes number releases independently, so each is graded on its own scale.
Recent votes
Voting at the going rate scores full marks. Only reps well below it lose points.
Votes seen from this rep, weighted toward recent ones. Shows it is voting, not just online.
One adjustment sits outside the six: a rep with no alias takes a small penalty. Anonymous reps are harder to hold accountable.
From score to percentage
The six are summed and shown as a share of the maximum: green, amber or red. The rankings page sorts by that total, so the number beside each rep is its place by health, not by size. Open a rep to see all six with their own ratings.
Five of the six need telemetry. A rep publishing none shows as not rated, sits below the scored reps and carries no rank. That is missing data, not a verdict.
Why less weight scores higher
The other five measurements ask whether the node does its job well. Voting weight asks whether more weight here would help the network. For a rep already holding a large share it would not: concentration lowers the Nakamoto coefficient and makes the network easier to stall.
Limits of the score
- It measures the node, not the operator.
- Peer count, version and backlog are self-reported. Nothing checks them.
- Uptime and vote counts are measured from one vantage point, the NanoTicker node. A rep with trouble only on that path looks worse than it is.
- Hosting is not included. It is tracked on the Nakamoto page.
How to use it
The top entry is not automatically the right pick. If everyone chose the same rep, its growing weight would push it back down. Pick any rep scoring well, ideally a smaller one. Changing is free and instant, as the voting weight explainer covers.