I’ve read the other side’s points. But don’t you think it makes sense for the little guys running nodes to step back to improve service quality and network durability? Here’s what I’m thinking:
- To deliver the best service, we need pros running the show - folks with the means to keep upgrading their setup. This basically rules out most of the small-time operators.
- The market wouldn’t be ruined even if we only had like 10 big players (think c0d3r, poktscan, etc.) running all the nodes. Like, if Infura or Quicknode had extra capacity, they could whip up a similar product for the average POKT holder and maybe give better returns.
- These big operators could be from the old-school web2 or the new decentralized web3 governed by token holders (= decentralised while centralised)
- Being big also means easier access to bulk discounts on stuff like bandwidth, storage, and computing power or just have way better utilisation of these resources, so they can optimise costs very well
So, even though these big players make things feel more centralized, the market itself remains decentralized, right? This setup allows us to squeeze costs while still offering top-notch service. I’m not sure the small node operators can pull this off - they might hang around in areas that the big guys aren’t interested in, but I think they’re headed for the exit in the long run.
However I agree stake weighting is a tricky problem. What if we calculate some limit after which staked amount doesn’t provide any benefit (using median in the formula or sth)?
Random idea: what if we introduce staking parameter like “DiscountRate”, so nodes would be able to voluntarily reduce reward per relay in order to improve their scoring? So when there would be operators with high stake, high QoS, they would be able to compete for bigger market share by lowering their margins → minting less rewards globally, while it can be more profitable for node operator (eg if discount 10 % brings 12 % increase in relays).