Assuming the goal is to build a network that is the go-to infrastructure for all Web3 apps someday, wouldn’t more nodes always be preferable to fewer nodes? I understand wanting to cut the number of nodes now is because we want to lower the cost of running nodes (to make it more profitable/sustainable for node runner). Or, is it because we want fewer node runners (of any type) earning rewards?
It seems to me that if the cost of running nodes was reduced dramatically as it would be when the LeanPOKT / light Client is released. Node runners would be more profitable and more sustainable in down markets. If that were true, why would we want/need fewer nodes other than to consulate rewards to fewer participants? I’m not saying that’s necessarily bad, it might be necessary for the short-term health of the network. But, I’m still not understanding why, aside from the current high-cost of running a node, fewer nodes would be better in the long-run.
I believe this is the same point @Shane is making. But to restate… If node costs were lowered to the point that running nodes was profitable in almost any market condition, would we still want to cut the node count? If so, I’m just not understanding why.