Seraphim Lab LiveDelegate
Provider record · reward epoch #449

Bushido FTSO

submittinglistedbushi.finance →

The same figures the register prints for every provider, for this one. Accuracy and vote power are the current epoch; rewards and APR are the last completed epoch. Back to the full field →

Grade

Rubric 2026-08-19.1

89.0/ 100 composite

Five axes at fixed published weights. Every figure underneath is measured by somebody else — the weighting is the only thing this site adds, and the rules are published so you can disagree with it precisely. Letters are cut at A ≥ 85, B ≥ 70, C ≥ 55, D ≥ 40.

Accuracy

35% of the grade

91.9/ 100

Band hit rates, ranked against the field and weighted the way the reward mechanism weights them — the primary (IQR) band carries 40% of FTSO reward value, the secondary (PCT) band 60%.

Verify at Flare Systems Explorer ↗The explorer has no per-provider page; this is the API query the figures were read from.

Reliability

25% of the grade

99.9/ 100

Rounds answered, plus the health of the validator nodes behind them. A node the registry cannot reach reports no uptime at all, so unreachable nodes are counted separately.

Verify at Flare Systems Explorer ↗The explorer has no per-provider page; this is the API query the figures were read from.Verify at Flare Registry ↗

Delegator economics

15% of the grade

61.7/ 100

What a delegator actually receives after this provider’s fee, how steady it has been, and whether vote power sits above the 2.5% cap where it earns nothing extra.

Verify at Flare Systems Explorer ↗The explorer has no per-provider page; this is the API query the figures were read from.Verify at FlareMetrics ↗

Independence

10% of the grade

98.4/ 100

How closely this provider’s submissions track Flare’s stock example implementation, as measured by Cerberus. A compliance signal, not an accuracy one — which is why it carries the smallest weight.

Verify at Cerberus On-Chain ↗Cerberus per-provider pages require an account. This is their open census endpoint — the same record this figure was read from, for every provider at once.Verify at Flare Registry ↗

This is the first epoch we have graded this provider in. The record builds as each reward epoch closes — a grade’s direction says more than its letter, and there is no direction to show yet.

Where this provider stands

Current reward epoch

102.74M
vote power (FLR)
entirely under the 2.5% network cap
20%
delegation fee
kept by the provider from delegator rewards
2.24%
delegation APR, net of fee
annualised from reward epoch #448
74.99%
primary band hit rate
anchor-feed submissions inside the reward band
99.61%
secondary band hit rate
the wider band, scored on the same rounds
100.00%
availability
rounds answered out of rounds asked

Delegation reward rate — rank in the fieldlast completed epoch, net of the provider's own fee

#26of 128 providers with a published rate

#1 · 2.89% APR25 ahead of this provider · 102 behind it#128

Ranked on the rate a delegator actually receives — gross rate less that provider's own fee — across every provider that published one for the last completed epoch. The field median is 2.24% APR. See the whole field →

Trends

One point per snapshotted reward epoch

Primary band hit rate0–100% of anchor-feed rounds
low
67.93%
latest
75.04%
high
81.43%
FigureLive data — 44 snapshotted reward epochs, #406 to #449
Delegation APR, net of feeannualised from each epoch’s net rate
low
2.22%
latest
2.24%
high
4.12%
FigureLive data — 43 snapshotted reward epochs, #406 to #449
Vote powerFLR delegated plus mirrored stake
low
102.74M
latest
102.74M
high
474.77M
FigureLive data — 44 snapshotted reward epochs, #406 to #449

Rewards, last completed epoch (#448)

As reported by the Flare Systems Explorer

13.64KFLR
Delegation (WNat)
251.32KFLR
Staking (mirror)
75.64KFLR
Fees kept
7.52KFLR
Self-bond

Four separate streams: delegation rewards paid on WNat, the mirrored staking reward, the fee this provider kept, and its own self-bond. They are not additive into a single "total earned" — each is claimed on its own terms.

Eligibility (FIP.10 minimal conditions)

12 of 12 snapshotted epochs met all four · 0 strikes

Swipe the table sideways for all 7 columns →

EpochScalingFastUpdStakingFDCPassesStrikes
#449✓✓✓✓30
#448✓✓✓✓30
#447✓✓✓✓30
#446✓✓✓✓30
#445✓✓✓✓30
#444✓✓✓✓30
#443✓✓✓✓30
#442✓✓✓✓30
#441✓✓✓✓30
#440✓✓✓✓30
#439✓✓✓✓30
#438✓✓✓✓30

A strike is an epoch whose minimal conditions were not met; four strikes cost the epoch's rewards.

Validator nodes

2 nodes on the P-chain

Swipe the table sideways for all 6 columns →

NodeUptimeReachableSelf-bondDelegatedDelegators
NodeID-JHnfNSNgSThSJEFG8aq99FRAE4a7Ko7UP100.00%✓15.48M198.87M61
NodeID-AW81N9vGQttoQMMdpqbihU5hEwH793YXj100.00%✓12.48M96.27M58

All 2 nodes reachable; the lowest uptime among them is 100.00%. Verify at Flare Registry ↗

Independence

Measured by a third party, published unadjusted

0.0164example-implementation likelihoodlikely independent

Cerberus’s own verdict: not an example provider match Their census covered 98 providers and flagged 18 as likely running the stock example.

What this measures: agreement with Flare’s stock example implementation, which itself tracks the consensus price. A provider that is accurate for entirely independent reasons will agree with it often. This is a compliance signal about how a provider is built — never a reading on whether its prices are good.

Agreement measuredRateMeaning
Exact same value7.04%rounds submitted at a value identical to the example’s
Within 5 basis points77.70%rounds within 0.05% of it
Same movement direction82.93%rounds that moved the same way it did
Same volatility response94.84%volatility events it reacted to the same way
Evidence coverage
100.00% of their target observation set (402,960 observations)
Channels ready
remote example ✓network test ✓regime ✓anchors ✓

Verify at Cerberus On-Chain ↗Cerberus per-provider pages require an account. This is their open census endpoint — the same record this figure was read from, for every provider at once.

No claim published

Declared by the provider
no signed declarationVerify at Flare Registry ↗
Measured independently
classification: likely independent at 0.0164Verify at Cerberus On-Chain ↗Cerberus per-provider pages require an account. This is their open census endpoint — the same record this figure was read from, for every provider at once.

This provider has not signed a registry listing, so there is no declaration to compare against. Listing is optional and most of the field has not done it — this is not a mark against anyone.

This provider has disclosed that it operates as part of a management group. That is a disclosure, not a finding, and it carries no weight in the grade either way.

Addresses & nodes

On-chain, checkable

Identity
0x69175664e592a41D789f912Ad92EC0C45AC64609
Delegation
0xC7cF3238D2ca63d01Ad4d42B4cCB9dB8b0adE702
Nodes
NodeID-JHnfNSNgSThSJEFG8aq99FRAE4a7Ko7UPNodeID-AW81N9vGQttoQMMdpqbihU5hEwH793YXj

Sources

Every figure on this page came from one of these

This site measures nothing itself. It reads four independent sources, joins them on the provider’s on-chain identity address, and applies a published weighting. Where a source disagrees with another, both are shown rather than resolved.

Flare Systems Explorer Flare Foundation
Band hit rates, availability, reward rates and the FIP.10 minimal-conditions record.Read 2026-11-11 03:25 UTC.Verify at Flare Systems Explorer ↗The explorer has no per-provider page; this is the API query the figures were read from.
Flare Registry BurstLabs
Validator uptime and stake, signature-verified listings, self-declarations and eligibility standing.Read 2026-11-11 03:25 UTC.Verify at Flare Registry ↗
Cerberus On-Chain cerberusonchain.xyz
The independent measurement of how closely a provider tracks the stock example implementation.Read 2026-11-11 03:25 UTC.Verify at Cerberus On-Chain ↗Cerberus per-provider pages require an account. This is their open census endpoint — the same record this figure was read from, for every provider at once.
FlareMetrics flaremetrics.io
The variation in a provider’s reward rate, computed over FlareMetrics’ own history — available immediately, where a figure derived from this site’s snapshots needs many epochs before it means anything.Read 2026-11-11 03:25 UTC.Verify at FlareMetrics ↗

A figure that looks wrong is worth raising with the source that published it — they own the measurement and we do not. If the fault is in how we joined or weighted it, tell us and we will correct it.

Convinced by the data? Delegating takes two minutes. Delegate to Seraphim →