A well written post, I’m very encouraged to see PIPs like this coming forward 
.
On the other hand, I currently disagree with this proposal and do not think it should be passed by the DAO.
My disagreement is best summarized in PIP-9 dissenting opinions:
Anything that can be moved to L2 to assist the network should be. Adding a revenue share % field for rewards not only increases the complexity of development - it also grows the blockchain size by an entire other field per Service Node. This is an unacceptable trade off considering the position Pocket Network is currently in with state size and data duplication. As this feature was considered when Non-Custodial was specified, it was realized that it’s quite unrealistic to optimize for a single use-case revenue share model. If the feature optimizes for one - it must optimize for others (fee scheduling - stake splitting etc) it’s a very slippery slope.
To further the point, Pocket Network Mainnet is currently supporting 18K+ validators and a sync from scratch can take days. As the core team alleviates the scalability issues with a persistence overhaul, feature requests like this can counter the efforts. At this stage in the project, the protocol is optimizing for security and scalability, not specific business use-cases. Though admittedly there is value in revenue sharing and it could be done L1 within the core Pocket protocol, at this time I’d highly discourage attempting to make a change that doesn’t support technical longevity of the blockchain. I would encourage the community to revisit this proposal at a later phase closer to maturity.