The story
Day one: from protocol rules to the systems that can break them
The workshop began in London on 28 March 2023. Its materials covered validator functions in Ethereum, Polkadot and Cosmos, including the way penalties arise from missed duties, conflicting signatures and other network-specific events.
The programme linked protocol mechanics with practical operator configurations. Participants examined how validator duties are carried out and where mistakes in software, hardware, personnel or configuration can create exposure.
Day two: comparing actual control choices
The technical work extended to key custody, remote signing, hardware-security modules, client diversity, active-standby and active-active systems, failover, access controls, updates, monitoring and incident response.
Those were not interchangeable checklist items. A well-designed resilient service might reduce downtime without introducing duplicate signing; a poorly controlled failover might protect availability while creating a slashable event.
The discussions examined what an underwriter or risk reviewer would need to ask about those choices, and how controls might affect the likelihood and severity of potential loss.
Four organisations, one technically focused engagement
The surviving commercial documents place the workshop on 28–29 March 2023 and identify Aon, Convex, Proof and Sompo in the project. The original engagement involved distinct broker, insurer and specialist roles rather than one jointly owned insurance company.
The historical file includes dated work orders and four invoices for the workshop service period. Those records substantiate a paid-scope commercial engagement in the sense of invoiced professional services; they are not evidence that every invoice was collected.
After the workshop, the founder reports continued professional contact with Aon. The source record does not establish a subsequent A43 mandate to create, price or underwrite an insurance policy.
Technical knowledge usable in a product discussion
The delivered materials gave insurance participants a more precise basis for discussing validator risks: what could fail, how an operator's configuration influenced exposure, and which evidence would be relevant to an assessment.
Aon subsequently published its own materials about staking and slashing insurance. Those publications are useful external context for the insurance market, but this case study credits A43 only for its documented workshop and related technical work.