Thank you for the detailed thoughts and ideas, @eliasimos. I learnt a few things myself by reading through the proposal and comments!
Though a lot of the ideas and suggestions resonate with me and arguably help both the growth and resilience of the network, I would personally like to push against it for the time being. I will defer the decision to the DAO.
1. Centralization risk at the full node layer
You mentioned this is not a risk in the short-medium term. However, I wanted to strengthen the point that Pocket is quite decentralized for a nascent network that is still being bootstrapped:
Image from poktscan.com
As the community grows, documentation & infrastructure improve, it will be easier for individuals to run their own nodes. For example, nodepilot.tech is moving fast, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they introduce some sort of node pooling (but that is outside the scope of this discussion).
2. Multiple Reward Addresses
As @Andrew, this is a great addition to a business use-case, though it still doesn’t solve all the problems so it is hard to determine where a line should be drawn. PIP-9 helps increase the security of the network, which is a large improvement in the short-term.
We are still learning around various business use cases as the market evolves, so it may be premature to implement some of those solutions in L1. For example, some node runners allow the stakeholders to configure a parameter to withdraw their POKT when earnings pass a certain threshold. It is still too early to say if business logic like this should be implemented in L1 today.
Final thoughts
Overall, my vote is to keep discussing but defer this PIP until the network is more mature.