RIP-000-021: Determining which darknodes will be protected from the increased bond size

Thanks again everyone for helping push this through and participating in the debate!


My position is still as before. I’m in favor of option 3 to make no change to the bonding requirements and provide no airdrop:

  • Simple, least hassle and complexity for the protocol going forward
  • I think it is unfair to let token holders bear the burden of inflation while protecting operators
  • Benefits decentralization down the line by not penalizing would-be operators/those who are not bonded
  • Even with increased bond there is no guarantee that operators won’t still be diluted in their income, because of the inflation there will likely be more operators anyways
  • Using an airdrop to compensate operators at the expense of token holders is a bad image imo, would prefer not to start 2.0 in that way

I’m starting to feel like a broken record listing my reasoning over and over again so I’ve kept it to a quick summary. For more of a deep dive I’ll refer to the first couple of posts in the RFC, I think its captured quite well and eloquently there.

2 Likes