Hi there,
I agree with most of the points with the exception of slashing jailed P-Rep for missing blocks.
Slashing should only be done to malicious actors.
More importantly, we can already see the rise of commission based P-Rep models where direct or indirect rewarding (ICX gained used to buy native tokens which get distributed to voters) convinces profit seeking voters (majority) to delegate votes to them.
Nothing wrong with that BUT, consequence of such model is gain of immense voting power both on network and CPS level, essentially driving towards centralization or monopoly if you wish.
This is very much unhealthy for Icon blockchain, its decentralization, future growth and for part of community that do not seek profit first, but have mindset to grow value of Icon through contribution (dev, marketing, media, etc…) and rather profit from the consequence of their positive intention.
But of course they can go to CPS and get funding there, this is what CPS was meant for.
Was it though?
Is it working?
Do P-Reps or projects that have binded their economic model to validator rewards still leave funds available for others not so fortunate to be able to create such circular economic models?
CPS is more or less emptied, big projects that were hit hard (especially ones with no validator commission model) have no choice but to turn to CPS despite unwanted consequences.
It feels like we can only dream that ICX will pick up and $ liquidity will rise in order to be able to sustain apetite for growth in un-explored directions.
Let’s have a healthy, constructive and respectful conversation around how and if should voting power gained from beforementioned commission model be separated from network and CPS voting power on top of well detailed breakdown by Scott.
Edit: grammar