@Guinch_Roze I have been following this draft quietly, but seeing that you intend to bring it back to the table, I must step in from an institutional investment perspective.
I fully agree with @RoboMcGobo’s assessment from a few months ago, and I want to make it clear that large-scale capital will not support this. While the romantic idea of “decentralization” is nice in theory, artificially punishing large validators and CEXs to subsidize smaller ones is terrible economics.
Let’s be clear: I am here because the alternative solution—reducing inflation from 20% to 4-5% and compensating with airdrops and other benefits—is far more attractive to me and, most importantly, to CEXs. It represents safe capital and high-level earnings. This is what will keep ATOM firm and stable for years to come. But at what price will we survive if we don’t follow that path?
Threatening CEX yields with your proposal introduces an unacceptable risk of delisting. If major exchanges decide that staking ATOM is no longer profitable due to artificial redistribution, the liquidity shock will destroy the price.
Furthermore, the moment this is officially published—even before the vote—the “great escape” will begin. Smart money will flee to safer assets, crashing the price. The only ones benefiting will be the massive investors and whales who will sell at the top, wait like killer whales, and buy back at the bottom.
I’ll be brutally honest: that is exactly what they will do, and it is exactly what I will do without hesitation. I am not a romantic; I am an investor, and I smell the money. I will profit from the volatility, but this will destroy ATOM and plunge us into another crisis just as we are trying to stabilize.
We need real value, not “Robin Hood” experiments. If this goes on-chain, expect strong NO WITH VETO votes from major holders. Let’s protect the asset’s future.