be as large as possible if they don't receive a reward? there are variants, or the fees are more expensive, or there are fewer validators
Validators are receiving rewards! And the validator costs are very low.
Yes, I repeat myself in vain, validators are there to receive rewards, if the reward is not worth it, there is no point in being a validator, so there are 3 options, either extremely many transactions are generated and you keep decentralization, or you make fees more expensive, or you reduce validators
Option 1 is what is being aimed for. And so "extremely many" aren't even needed. We need either 4million smart contract transactions a day, or 80mil normal ones if we want to keep the current staking APR (but even half of current APR would be more than enough for validators to make a profit). Since most transactions are smart contract transactions anyways (guesstimate), this goal is not hard to reach I think. Looking at other chains, this should be doable.
what happens if it doesn't reach that level? and how do you scale the validators, as 3200 validators are not many, of which a handful of people represent 90% of the tokens, even if they are agents,
then APR will be based on transactions that happen on the network. I dont understand the second part of your question. 3200 validators are quite a lot. We have the 2nd most validators of any proof-of-stake chain, right after Ethereum
eth have 460 k validator
where do you have this FAKE NEWS from?
Обсуждают сегодня