Your first mentioned this proposal being for the little guys. They do exists and there are still some folks that run POKT nodes from their homes, mostly using Node Pilot, though typically well below network average. GANDALF starts making the network conducive to such node setups, and this proposal was presented as a way to help out them out as well… hence why I took time to reason out how that would not be the case.
GANDALF is stalled at the moment because it either takes gateways to change their cherry picker parameters to check how many chains a node is staked with, or it takes network upgrade change where the network checks if the number of chains a node is staked on equals the allowed value before the node is put in a session.
So far PNI and PNF have been absent from the conversation, so there isn’t a clear path forward. Honestly, if you wanted to add MaxChains checking to sessions as part of this proposal, so that MaxChains can be adjusted, then support would make more sense, as it would actually touch on much of POKT economic needs IMO. We would start fixing the actual economic engine of POKT.
That 10,000 POKT going to a single machine is coming out of the 220k being minted per day via ARR. So by having a single machine generating 4.5% of POKT’s total daily reward (which is $2,880 a month), the rewards on all the other RelayChainIDs get dramatically reduced.
Those without the hardware for LLMs (and 14 other chains) see their rewards dramatically reduced, while the LLM providers generate huge portion of POKT total rewards. Example 
This Proposal + POKT LLM
Lets say this proposal passes, and POKT LLM is launched given a 150x RTTM weight since it’s calls are 150x more resources (15s/.1s).
If this POKT LLM gets a low 2M relays a day, since it has a 150x weight, it actually has the effect of 300M relays being added to the network.
If 300M equivalent relays were added to the network via POKT LLM, then every other RelayChainID’s reward would be reduced by 20%. This is because ARR only allows 220k POKT to be minted per day, so POKT LLM would take 20% of that mint due to it’s weight.
This means that everyone who does not have the infra to support POKT LLM would immediately have their rewards cut by 20% immediately. Only those with the hardware chops to support POKT LLM will get the $40k being produced each month.
This 20% shift of the rewards to LLM providers, would only create $1.7 a day in protocol burn revenue (GatewayFeePerRelay). Is $255 of monthly burn worth shifting $40k of rewards to those with LLM capabilities? I’m not sure… as technically POKT LLM should be generating $7,650 if it’s GatewayFeePerRelay was properly weighted.
To make the whole network benefit from POKT LLM, from my perspective, there would need to be a dynamic GatewayFeePerRelay per RelayChainID to be a part of this proposal. The more folks that use the more expensive POKT LLM, the more POKT is minted, without compromising POKT’s desire to be low inflation and eventually deflationary. I already modeled out an ARR that is not a flat 220k per day, but connected to what is being burned, so technically most of the economic work for this is already done in Burn And 🥩 Harnessing (BASH) Deflation Economic Model.
Prepare POKT For POKT LLM
I can’t say this enough, I support this kind of move. Not entirely sure if it works for v0, but I’m more than willing to consider it… so thank-you for bringing this forward.
To actually make POKT v0 conducive to this kind of fundamental change, then I see this proposal getting us 33% of the way there in it’s current form. To make this move towards serving POKT LLM, in a manner that does NOT further gut rewards for those without LLM hardware, and produces fair protocol revenue (burn), then personally believe this proposal needs to address:
- MaxChains fix (balance the network without the need for complex DAO levers)
- Dynamic GatewayFeePerRelay per chain (so the protocol can charge LLM RelayChainIDs fairly)
- Accompanying replacement to ARR to account for chain specific GatewayFeePerRelay per chain (as mentioned before, I’ve already modeled out an ARR alternative that connects inflation to the burn rate, so I would consider this already done).
To launch this in v1 makes TONs of sense because most of this is already being planned or can be incorporated… but open to v0 if it makes sense (hence why I’m putting time into flushing this out).
Not trying to be adversarial, just being pragmatic with the economic effects of such a move and the wider ramifications 
Thank-you for all your response 
What are the hardware requirements for this? What kind of GPU’s would this require? This could be a very cool way to get old miners (like myself) putting GPU’s to use… so more info on all would be required of folks to join POKT LLM would be super helpful with all this decision making.
Big fan of the work overall