Open therealdannzor opened 3 years ago
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! 💪