Another thing that I would like to point out here as a strong reason to vote AGAINST this proposal in its current form (so we can improve it) is that the 21 handpicked MPC node operators would be receiving higher NEAR-based monthly rewards than what the top 5 NEAR validators get from a 5% pool fee.
For the calculation:#5 bitwise_1.poolv1.near | Ⓝ20M delegated | 5% fee | 4.90% APY (per near-staking)
→ Ⓝ20,000,000 x 0.049 = Ⓝ980,000 (near-staking estimated APY)
→ Ⓝ980,000 x 0.05 = Ⓝ49,000/year (validator’s fee)
→ Ⓝ49,000 / 12 = Ⓝ4,083
While beneficiaries of this proposal would receive Ⓝ4,600
So, I do agree that the Chain Signatures and NEAR Intents infrastructure is important to NEAR but I don’t see how it could be more important than the NEAR infrastructure itself.
Paying more protocol-based rewards to the former creates weird incentives and dynamics, imo. I really don’t think I can agree with that, having NEAR and HoS best interests in mind, sorry.
Another thing that I would like to point out here as a strong reason to vote AGAINST this proposal in its current form (so we can improve it) is that the 21 handpicked MPC node operators would be receiving higher NEAR-based monthly rewards than what the top 5 NEAR validators get from a 5% pool fee.
For the calculation:#5 bitwise_1.poolv1.near | Ⓝ20M delegated | 5% fee | 4.90% APY (per near-staking)
→ Ⓝ20,000,000 x 0.049 = Ⓝ980,000 (near-staking estimated APY)
→ Ⓝ980,000 x 0.05 = Ⓝ49,000/year (validator’s fee)
→ Ⓝ49,000 / 12 = Ⓝ4,083
While beneficiaries of this proposal would receive Ⓝ4,600
So, I do agree that the Chain Signatures and NEAR Intents infrastructure is important to NEAR but I don’t see how it could be more important than the NEAR infrastructure itself.
Paying more protocol-based rewards to the former creates weird incentives and dynamics, imo. I really don’t think I can agree with that, having NEAR and HoS best interests in mind, sorry.