It is extremely frustrating to debate such important topics on a forum 
I do miss local meetups.
-
everything balances out nature part.
I agree with what you are saying, my point is we should not have such a disruptive approach. Just observe nature’s ecosystems, everytime man touches it thinking it’s gonna fix it, it leads to more damage either ST/LT, the impact is always negative.
Other parallel could be Adam Smith’s invisible hand theory in which at the end of the day if all the actors are acting out of personnal interest, it benefit wealthiness and common good.We should make use of that invisible hand which by nature keeps a natural balance by creating incentives such as the one I described without having strong, direct, hard to measure/balance/define impact such as the one you described.
Surely yours have the benefit to be applied ST but it is taking additionnal risks and is not sustainable. The kind of proposal you are drafting would ‘yet’ again put power in the hands of few with a multisig etc… which again give a terrible look following past proposals which for some were total robbery. I know this one is not but if decentralization is what we want that’s not it.
The problem only exists in a ST timeframe if we think about expending our validator set which puts the choice in our hands. The problems aren’t gonna magically appear tomorrow, everything is monitored. I think we do have enough time to act carefully and in a sustainable and healthy manner.
-
Taking money from the rich part.
I don’t like the idea of redirecting the consumer chains’ revenue to small validators but I think is has more to do about personnal believes perhaps political opinion.
First of all it’s their job to be financially stable, they are companies it’s their responsabilities to make money.The problem is for too long we opened the gates of the active validators set without thinking ahead, now we indeed foresee a risk for the ‘bottom’ validators.
Let’s say we use CP to help small validators, it leaves a huge cap between the validators right outside the criterias(which very surely could not be necessarily top x or xx) and the one fitting. All validators SHOULD also have different infrastructure, by providing a fixed subzidy not only there is the sybil that you prefectly described but also all validators fitting the criterias shifting towards the same infrastrure that fit the subsidy bundle to make more money.
I also think CP should ONLY be used for innovative and ‘step-forward’ techs, ideas, teams etc… but this is a rule (perhaps only mine) that we broke a long time ago.