# Consensus rewards whitepaper concern

**URL:** <https://forum.algorand.co/t/consensus-rewards-whitepaper-concern/11259>\
**Category:** General\
**Created:** [January 30, 2024, 9:10pm UTC](https://forum.algorand.co/t/consensus-rewards-whitepaper-concern/11259 "2024-01-30T21:10:05Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 18

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lobo](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.algorand.co/lobo/32/2828_2.png) [@lobo](https://forum.algorand.co/u/lobo)\
**Post date:** [February 2, 2024, 4:54pm UTC](https://forum.algorand.co/t/consensus-rewards-whitepaper-concern/11259/18 "2024-02-02T16:54:21Z")

</div>

according to some smart people current node software is not optimized for multiple addresses participating on the same node and apparently after 3-4 doing so the node might run into problems (missing votes/proposals). this would mean the lower the cap the more physical nodes those entities would have to run.

question now is if that’s true at all? and if it’s true can the node software be changed to eliminate those problems?

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.algorand.co/t/consensus-rewards-whitepaper-concern/11259)._