This entry might be using an old signature, or it was signed by a key that does not exist on the server.
[QUOTE="Niels, post: 529, member: 8"]Using your economic model and with the proposed levels of deferment to the grant pool, there could be some concerns:
You could gain a lot of influence as a standing party. Could you give us your vision about this? [/QUOTE]
Given how many entities will be involved, we don't see our deferment/financing as something that would provide undue influence. It would give us a seat at the table, which is what we're really after. However, we do understand the concern, and are willing to discuss it further and work with the community to find solutions to address it. One solution could be that any node operator is only allowed to stake 50% (or some other %) of their token distribution, effectively leveling the playing field regardless of each entity's efficiency.
An additional note on deferment (and please forgive us for getting a little philosophical here): at face value, maximum deferment seems like it would be advantageous to the protocol, but we question this from a structural standpoint. For systems to advance rapidly, they need a healthy mix of centralized planning and free-market forces. While the deferment/grants will provide an essential source of centralized funding, that decision-making process is susceptible to the kind of planning-by-committee that can stifle innovation. We feel we should balance this out by allowing node operators to deploy resources in pursuit of their individual strategies, creating a robust marketplace of ideas. By over-leveraging node operators with 50% deferments, we could risk sacrificing the market forces that promote the kind of independent thinking that can lead to transformative innovation.