Ok as someone as part of a chain’s process of decentralization and following up with most of the chains.
First of all, decentralization means inefficiency but also letting it all on the system is wrong. Manny system failed. I will give some examples. I didn’t want to name chains directly but most people can know how it goes.
Chain was successful at the beginning then people keep voting on dapps dapps sold to Foundation. Right now more than 50% controlled by a single entity. It might be close to +80% but I didn’t pay attention that much to that part. The issue is if dapps from small teams are gaining all the votes. It’s possible they acquired by big entities. Which happened with some other chain very recently. They came from outside and take over the chain.
About bounding for avoiding selling or skin in the game approach. It’s first of all very negative approach for decentralization and implementing after decentralization will just make entities not backed by companies etc will not try to get in so In long term whole chain filled with companies also some people with enough investment. On one of the chains, the guy who runs it had a traffic accident and jailed. A lot of stakers coins and generated coin stuck on that account.
Filling it with companies also issue. Companies drive for profit which can lead to cartelization even if not in the long run it’s not beneficial enough for the chain.
Now on community teams, Team delivers a 20k USD worth of product and they spend 2k per month every month community saw that and support them they become top 3-5 on that chain they are here over years but since then they just keeping their developed program up which is server cost and maintenance. With all of these extensive rewards, they started to become validators for other chains by just putting their investment in because they were rewarded a lot while their spending is minimal.
In any way, we can’t just fix this issue with just decreasing or increasing irep values even tho main issue is vote concentration on top. Anyway, my suggestion is like vote by preps banning a team we need a function which half of prep rewards and cutting prep teams reward to 0 for a period. With these functions, if a team not doing anything and just claiming their rewards by a vote of preps they can lose 50% or 100% of their rewards till they provide something and again by vote they will keep receiving rewards again. If they don’t I don’t see a point they keep their investment in while they are not getting any reward they might consider voting for other preps which is unlikely. That’s my suggestion without some control over it by human factors. We can’t be successful and become the same as other chains in the long run. That’s why we need active control and this way we can have it in a decentralized way. If people are not happy with the result and how these handled they can also change their votes accordingly since it will be public