This was specifically mentioned by Susruth earlier above in this proposal: “ A subnet can have an additional bonding requirement on top of the 100k REN staked to run the DN”
This is the bonding that it is still not clear in which currency is being thought out to be.
This comment is kind of worrying. The first post where proposal is presented sounded like an invitation to discuss and to try to tailor the model taking into consideration possible concerns and/or different points of view. As with any discussion, and more with something that drastically change the network, questions are to be expected. We must be open to accept that not all points may be supported and then we work together to sort those in order to move forward. But these type of “either or nothing” comments feel like an ultimatum and it’s not great.
Regarding @DeFi_Whiskey post I also agree decentralisation and full ren’s crosschain function (aka H2h) are always a requirement to move forward regardless of the model and even more if being an L1 was/is on the table so this should never have been delayed.
I think as a community we are ready to support any proposal but all aspects should be well explained first in order to have a clear picture and being able to make an educated decision. I/we also expect that modifications will be considered to meet community concerns.