I don’t see the need for the minimum we already maintain a map of online accounts currently in memory it didn’t affect anything
Can you point to where in the code this map can be used to non-manually mitigate absenteeism in the critical path?
Have you considered consensus parameters? Do you understand how the distribution of stake across accounts affects the comp and data burden?
people are going to drop off themselves because they aren’t making money and spending too much maintaining a node
What is your assertion?
As more stake is online the less chance you get, indirectly raising the minimum.
No, the more stake online doesn’t change a static floor for CI, minimum changes probability for consensus execution, not for incentives yielded, which directs stake distribution.
I think you don’t understand the technical nuances of that which you are arguing for.
I think we should reward everyone regardless of minimums
OK, I disagree.
As currently suggested the game theory suggests an effective minimum for everyone because by not staking the minimum you’re getting diluted compared to those who have the minimum.
No, this doesn’t make sense.
Can you explain your posit with example?
These things should be enshrined or algorithmically determined
Enshrined by who? isn’t this the point of decentralisation?
How can you algorithmically determine an outcome predicated on a multivariate function dependent on multiple unknowns propagating in a globally distributed system?