PSS: Exclusive vs Inclusive Top-N

In contrast to opt-in consumer chains, where any validator can opt in or out of validation, top-n consumer chains will obligate top validators (the top “n” percent) to validate them. This will be useful for consumer chains that want a guarantee about the level of security they will get, as well as providing a migration path for existing replicated security consumer chains to partial set security. When consumer chains launch, they can choose to use top-n and what the “n” percent is (top 66% is 24 validators). In contrast to pure opt-in chains, top-n chains will never be able to be launched permissionlessly and will always use a governance proposal. But there are some choices to be made about who else gets to validate these consumer chains. Inclusive top-n In this concept, the top “n” percent of the validator set would be obligated to run a consumer chain, but anybody else who wanted to could opt in as well. The top validators only have downside here- they are forced to run the chain, but anyone else can run it if it is profitable. As a consumer chain’s revenues go up and down, the top validators will have to see it through the tough times, only to see a bunch of smaller…

Excerpt (1195 of 2988 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

This one is pretty easy. Inclusive top-n. Why? This is how real economies work. If you have an expansion, more small businesses are created alongside the big businesses which theoretically eat into their profits. But that is not the case in reality because small businesses create new products that the big business wouldn’t invest in since they don’t do “invention”. Big businesses job is to sell proven products profitably, they are not VCs. When the economy goes into recession, the small businesses go bankrupt first and the big businesses still stick around to provide the service and some level of employment. If you were to choose an Exclusive top-n model that is the equivalent of a monopoly or oligarchy which uses the legal system to prevent the formation of small business competitors and thus theoretically to maximize their profits. While I am always of the mindset to increase return on capital, I don’t think blocking small business formation is the way to do it because small business rarely competes head on with big business. It simply can’t. Small business has to offer something new that big business doesn’t have to survive. In this case, I think the big chains are able…

Excerpt (1197 of 1429 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗