If the bond doesn’t earn rewards (or if the rewards go to the treasury) at current bond levels I don’t see any new collators joining the set. Sure, putting in a bunch of protectionist measures would be great for the existing collator set, but is it good for the overall network to shut out any new potential collators? Some of these companies bring more to the table than just running a collator.
Increasing the bond made sense to me as a way to stop a whale from gaming the system to get in more and more collators with the same amount of funds, but this new proposal is completely shutting the door to any new collators.
We haven’t seen any collators joining yet at the new 2M bond amount. Until we see a bunch of whales pushing in with 2M bonds I don’t see the need to make any more changes to discourage new collators from joining. In fact if we don’t see enough new collators it would be a sign the 2M bond is too high and should be lowered.
3 Likes
Frankly I’m torn, I agree with @Art_Kaseman and @Daniel_TrueStaking. We just got the 2m bond increased so it’s too early to see how effective it is. However that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to be proactive. I think we should consider the idea of pinching off collator rewards to Treasury. It’s certainly a community style move “give back to the community for the community”. I would feel more inclined or comfortable if we started off small like maybe a 70/30 split and someone from the Treasury steps forward saying “yeah with the 30% reward pool we can achieve x,y,z initiatives”. It would feel more of structured vision to me IMHO.
1 Like
Damn it Arthur, you make sense 
From my point of view, collator profitability is a lever, and using the lever to pause the trend is OK to avoid structural dead-ends and centralization death-spirals. Undoing or adjusting the lever is easy. Undoing structural changes (for example, collator set makeup) is infinitely harder. I understand that the network needs to stay open to new opportunities as much as it needs to stay secure. Fingers crossed you get that balance right.
I had not thought of the 2M effect on the delegations roll-over strategy; that’s spot on.
1 Like