I don’t run any validator node.
That is why I would like to inform you that my proposal has no conflict of interest.
I think hard-line policy is the last resort in all matters.
If Allnode is only one Node hosting provider in the world, this proposal could work.
But if the number of validator using AWS or other provider company services increases in the future, do We have to remove them again? It’s a vicious cycle.
The same problem exists in other chains, such as ETH and SOL. However, they do not preemptively and forcefully respond to the risks that may arise in the future.
Two questions must precede this.
Biggest companies coexist with the trust they have built up as they grow and the social responsibility they have to protect. We use services based on their trust.
We don’t reject Google Maps for fear of tracking Google’s location.
We do not reject the Pentagon for have a red button for nuclear missiles.
Because I think it’s safer for the socially responsible to manage a huge power than for the individual. It is not an ideology that excludes decentralization. It’s a mutual commitment based on trust.
However, there is a possibility that the problem of Node provider, which certain people are concerned about, will happen in the future. We can probably set some rules to prevent this from happening.
We allow up to 5 validator provided by one node provider company.
We limit the maximum amount of coins that can be delegate to one validator to 5% of the total steak.
The proposal could also solve the problem of certain validator who are playing chicken games with 0% percent commission for increase voting power.
If you have a better offer than this, please suggest it. However, please refrain from suggestions that can benefit specific people more. An equal offer is good for everyone.