Then what about user running nodes already and also staking ? Should they get new nodes ?
Also here: how does this proposal serve and grow the ecosystem around HOPR mid- to longterm?
If feels like it only improves the status quo of people already in HOPR.
Yes (if they meet the criterias).
DAI proposal - we will have many potential node runners with hardware.
HOPR proposal - we will support existed and new node runners.
Node runners and its count are critical points in blockchain security.
If HOPR sees adoption, there will be multiple 10K (probably even way more) persons/groups running nodes. Your suggested 130 free avado nodes are irrelevant in such a scenario.
I think 10k node runners in next few years is impossible. For example, Mina (top100) has only ~220 active validators with uptime >95% ((Better) Mina Uptime Leaderboard - TowerStake). Mina is more popular and bigger project then Hopr. 130 is 65% from 220.
In the Wildhorn Testnet on Polygon, over 2500 node operators participated.
You can’t compare production and testnet. Mina testnet has over 2k nodes too. In production we need real cost tokens to run node. And 2.5k is not 10k. For example, some people in Wildhorn testnet run > 100 nodes to get HOPR NFT. In real life it will be 1 node.
In a world fueled by logic + combined with reasonable ‘tokenomics’ (and I trust the hopr team to not put there a high minimum threshold, it wouldn’t make any sense), a mainnet (and thus the chance to earn real money) should trigger even more nodes.
But I realize that I am impersonating Don Quixote here.
It will be great. But, unfortunately, I think 300-500 is real node runners count in production environment after 1-2 year. Don’t forget about economic too.
You also need to take into account that not everyone will be able to receive, due to problems with delivery.
It’s a future non critical technical problem. I thinks, that now it’s not important.
@svd our test-nets had between 1’000-3’000 nodes up & running (remember when our community f*** the Binance WebSocket?
We do believe that 7’000 - 11’000 is a target we can reach together with our community in the next 6-12 months
Thanks a lot for putting things into perspective!
@rikzrh. Very good dream, but I think it’s impossible. Hopr have only 5833 token holders. If all holders will run their node - it will be only 5800 nodes :) Not all blochchain project from TOP20 have 10k validators/nodes. But time will show.
In conclusion I think it’s not a contructive dispute - we try to share the skin of an unkilled bear
P.s. And please do not compare testnet with real production. In testnet some people runs >100 nodes!
In general, we aim for high but reachable targets ;-)
… just a small idea:
1 Token Holder can run multiple nodes,
and we know that many do run a lot more then 1 or 2 or 10 nodes
I think we can return to this dispute after one year and we will see the result - who is right ;) But this does not in any way contradict with my proposal.
Puh, I am not agreeing with your conclusion.
Furthermore – why does your proposal for example favour big wallets compared to smaller ones (“by Hopr token count in Hopr stacking”)?
Are only big wallets true believers?
Or how about first hour holders who cannot afford the bridge fees and are thus not able to take part in the staking program at all?
I propose first order by HOPR NFT. And only after then by HOPR tokens count. I think it’s honestly.
Big wallets have big risks.
I thinks my proposal is most honest. Always someone will be dissatisfied, but in common it’s ok. If you think another - you can propose your version and I will correct my proposal.
But a strategy that only lets already participatung users participate is not really inclusive, right?
Why have ‘big wallets big risk’? The only thing I can think of you are talking about here is smart contract risk. And this is the same amount of risk for everybody.