As B&C signers are mostly keepers of rubberstamp robots, quite unlike FLOT members who are required to make decisions. So what differenciate signer A and signer B is how secure they are, how fast they sign, and how much they charge for themselves IMO.
I think that signers who are selecting their server from similar kind of server providers are facing similarly levels of security risk and the risk is low due to the nature of multisig – you can’t do much if you get hold of one key.
I am not sure how the speed of a signer’s signing related to B&C’s performance. As the transaction confimation time is the coins’ native confirmation time (~10 minutes for BTC and 1 minute for NBT etc.), I don’t know if signer A signs in 1 second and signer B signs in 0.5 second, users can feel the difference – could Charlie using A miss a trade to Dave using B, or it;s just that Charlie will have his trade confirm 0.5 seconds slower than Dave? In any case if speed is an issue signers can just buy a faster server to compete with other signers in this aspect. In the end all signers may have the same kind of performance.
Signers charge fees. To stay competitive signers will offer lower fees. Because except for the recurring server cost, the cost to be a signer is initial setup time and not much else. So my guess is that competition will drive down signer fees until the profit is very low.
I might missed other quality metrics of a signer, e.g. how often the key is updated etc.
edit: I see the thread is splitted. maybe this post should go to a thread called “Quality of a B&C signer”
