Some people on this forum seem to think that the 4k and 10k solutions would be more centralised and I must admit I thought the same at first until I really thought about it. The reason why these options are not more centralised is precisely because the stake required is so high, at 10k there are few whales with enough Dash to be able to form a majority stake in Dash in order to control the Platform, so 10k is by far the safest and most decentralised option. As we go to smaller stakes, the risk becomes that a big whale could create enough nodes such that they control the network and do the bad things.
10k is not the most decentralized option. 1k is more decentralized than 10k. The one who has enough money in order to destroy the decentralization and control the Platform in the 1k solution, can do this more easily (or at worst at the same difficulty) in the 10k solution. If we consider the difficulty is the same, even then for the 1k solution we still have the hope that the network may be decentralized (and we can prove the level of decentralization by investigating
individualities)
As long as there are a few people that can afford the 10k solution, the total staked collateral for the 10k solution will be less than the total staked collateral for the 1k solution. This makes the 1k solution a more decentralized solution, because the total stake for the 1k solution will be bigger than the 10k solution stake. So someone who want to control the network, can do it with less money in the 10k solution. Unless of course the total stake is arbitralily set identical for both 1k and 10k solutions. If the total stake is set identical for both 1k and 10k solutions, then this second argument does not apply.
This is most obviously in the 1k opt in model where MNOs choose to run Evo with 1k collaterals, if the network size were say 600 Evo 1k nodes, then our largest whale could wind up controlling a third of the network which is the threshold where they can start to mess with it.
When arguing, you mismatch the cases. You can compare (1k, 10k both mandatory). You can compare (1k, 10k both opt in). You can compare (1k opt in, 10k mandatory). You can finnaly compare (1k mandatory, 10k opt in). Each set of two elements requires a different analysis, and has different advantages and disadvantages. You cannot argue for the advantages of the (1k, 10k mandatory) set and then argue for the disadvantages of the (1k opt in, 10k opt in) set, and then come to a conclusion. This is a mismatch. You have to examine and compare each case, as a set of two elements.
Lets analyze.
(1k, 10k both mandatory). How can 10k be mandatory?
We dont know the 10k whales, so we cannot force them to participate in the Platform. We may have a
clue about them, but it is just a clue.
(1k, 10k both opt in). This is a possible scenario.
(1k opt in, 10k mandatory). Again, how can 10k be mandatory? We dont know the 10k whales, so we cannot force them to participate in the Platform.
(1k mandatory, 10k opt in). This is also a possible scenarion.
So the 10k solution is always opt in. And if we do not set a mandatory total collateral for the Platform to start, then the 10k solution may become tottaly centralized, because maybe we will have very few 10k whales that they will be interested.
