# Rethinking Consensus Incentive

Transaction fees are minimal, and paid by the end user, not the node that is broadcasting the txn. I disagree entirely that those fees should incentivize consensus, and they would have to be MUCH higher to provide enough APY to incentivize.

This is not an unnecessary complication, this is trying to…

# Consensus rewards whitepaper concern

I understand that it’s not happening as well as hoped, and maybe it would never, but those who run for purely monetary gain will drive decisions based on that. Perhaps there is another way to incentivize. Personally I’ve run a node for a while, but I never set it to participate until recently, beca…

# Monetary Incentives in Protocols

Monetary incentive will naturally, over time, put monetary incentive as a driver, if not the primary driver, of protocol development decisions. I have an idea for an alternative, that does not change the game theory of incentive to run a node being tied with the benefit of the protocol/network itse…

# Concerns on Game Theory

I fear that the consensus mechanism will fundamentally change the game theory, and over time change Algorand in unpredictable and undesirable ways. Is there a chain with consensus incentives that does not trend toward centralizing? A cap on participation doesn’t change the centralized power of pool …

# Rewarding Node Runners Through Governance

It may start out temporary, but would not be guaranteed to end as expected. You create pure business motive for node running, and those businesses will use resources to protect their business/profit. They will work to convince people to make it permanent, they will work to make it more difficult to r…

No wallet outside of Inc is anywhere remotely close to 33%. Furthermore my understanding on the protocol is that such an attack would not take the network down or create malicious blocks since there are 3 committees and a recovery mode on timeout/stall. I am strongly opposed to node rewards as it brings in…