You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Low net-worth peers could have a constant cost k but this is conditioned on that they stay within a limit of the amount of transactions they do within a time period T, where this could be e.g. 24 hours, 1 week, etc. This is to prevent sybil attacks and similar network spam attacks.
The rest of the [middle and high net-worth] peers could pay a progressive cost in different tranches, similar to a progressive income tax model adopted in many western European countries. Their transaction frequency would most likely be unbounded. A part of their gas costs would be redistributed to the low net-worth peers.
When it comes to the redistribution mechanism, it exists a boundary condition that needs to be addressed where a low and medium net-worth peer benefits from spending their funds to keep get receiving network subsidies. Perhaps this redistribution model will also be progressive and not simply have a sharp cliff to prevent abuse.
Wealthy peers should pay more than poor peers for operations on the network. Time for a redistribution! 💪
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: