@tknox35
Interesting thought. I think it leads us to a broad question - is it the responsibility of the Hub to keep the small validators afloat during Replicated Security, or is it the responsibility of each consumer chain? Or a combination (e.g., Some Hub support and some consumer chain subsidy as well)?
@common_spelling
My perspective is that by coming together in a shared economic system, consumer chains are incentivized to act with the wellbeing of ATOM in mind. One of the ideas I mention is of a token swap, which would keep ATOM on the balance sheet of the consumer chain, which would be motivated to act in the best interests of ATOM - I think that’s sort of a heavy-handed example of what I mean by an incentive though!
That would be my personal expectation for why the Hub could fund consumer chains even if there’s an expected initial loss. Realistically, I don’t think the Hub would continue to secure chains operating at a significant loss.
There is no number of consumer chains that validators will be expected to include. The launch of Replicated Security is just about making it possible, and there isn’t a consensus on how many chains the Hub should provide for. I think it’s actually impossible to pin down that number - depends too much on how lucrative each project is, what kinds of returns the Hub gets, and how much effort it is to provide for them. We just don’t have those answers yet, and I don’t think we can get them without actually trying it out.
I do think the onus is on the prospective consumer chain to prove that a relationship between it and the Hub makes sense. And by approving Game of Chains and Prop 72, the Hub has indicated that it’s going to give these chains a fair shot to make their case.