Entering this thread with humility. Not my comfort zone, so please bear with me if I overstep.
How do you empirically arrive at what’s over-provisioned, balanced and under?
I think I have asked you this question on a separate thread.
I know that a Pocket equivalent doesn’t exist yet. Is there anything else in this space or maybe elsewhere that can provide some benchmarks?
I have been thinking about the method to arrive at $POKT’s demand- emissions equilibrium with respect to our working group and my upcoming research blog, and I get stuck at the following to know what demand is-
a) what’s the optimum number of nodes needed to meet the quality and decentralisation standards
b) what are those standards
c) how did we arrive that those standards
I feel finding the number of validators needed is a relatively easier question because there is some benchmarking available for general security standards.
Also, another thought-
Has there been any conversation about the DAO dynamically covering (through funding or subsidies) for the gap in minimum standards of decentralisation (predefined) for the network VS the actual in the network, whenever the actual falls below the minimum standard?
The DAO’s share of emissions could increase under those special conditions.
I have no idea how technically possible or impossible this is to execute but from a network design and efficiency (and therefore quality) perspective, this might make some sense.
Because now we don’t have to put decentralisation/small node runners at the centre stage and inadvertently push other metrics (or priorities) to the backstage, that may be equally or even more important to the end user.
Decentralisation is a metric that we would want to support. It has cost and tradeoffs. First we need to know what decentralisation means to us, the market/end users; which is what I think we are trying to achieve through this research post.
Lastly and related- this place is inundated with node runners (love you all). Therefore it’s natural to have sentiments and opinions sway in one direction.
I would humbly urge us to keep the market realities (or the space), protocol and the enduser in mind in such discussions. Because there could be natural conflicts and tradeoffs.
Sorry for any ignorant comments.
Thanks for reading.