I've been thinking about a criticism someone brought up a few weeks ago. It was in regards of hardware scaling and the gist of it was: "Why would Masternode owners accept increasing hardware requirements and the reduced profits coming with them?" While some of us would offer the shoot-from-the-hip answer "Because they'd be incentivized to act in the networks interest", I think we'll have to go deeper than that. The major difference between a miner and a Masternode (in regards to incentive) is that the payment for a Masternode is a) virtually guaranteed and b) a fixed sum. Miners however have to provide hashing power in competition to each other. The miner with the highest hashrate receives the most rewards. But a Masternode that hardly contributes to the network receives the same exact reward as one that handles massive amounts of traffic, does IS locks and mixings. I think what is needed is a mechanism to reward nodes proportional to the amount of service requests they handle for the network. I believe the Evolution whitepapers already mention a similar concept described as "network actions" which can be measured. I'm envisioning a small sub-ledger next to the blockchain, stored on DashDrive which contains a ranking of all nodes keeping track of successful service requests. A service request can be defined as participation in an InstantSend lock, a mixing session and of course relaying and verifying a block of transactions (and any future usage of full nodes within Evolution). The purpose, obviously, would be to incentivize people to provide more powerful hardware able to handle more requests than competing nodes in order to receive higher payouts. I'm not an expert of any relevant kind here and I'm sure there must be some flaw in my line of thinking, otherwise surely someone would've already done this. I'd appreciate input from anyone, but especially our developers. Thanks!