0x982312e1…d4c5sent to0x6dfa413b…492d·#24,902,065·view on Etherscan
I’m voting against this as it stands because it feels like we’re being asked to greenlight something before the important stuff is actually nailed down. Pooling validators and letting AIVM decide who does what might be efficient, but it also means a lot of control ends up in one place. There’s no clear line on how decisions get made when things get busy, or how you make sure one chain doesn’t get screwed over another. Saying “we’ll figure that out later” on stuff like fairness and control just doesn’t sit right—those are the parts that can make or break this.
Also, from a worker/validator perspective, I don’t see why I’d jump into this yet. There’s no real explanation of how I’d make more, what risks I’m taking on, or how the system stops people from gaming it. It all sounds good in theory, but it’s missing the “here’s how this actually holds up when people start pushing it” part. I’m not saying the idea is bad—it’s got potential—but right now it feels half-baked. Lock down the rules, show how it doesn’t fall apart under pressure, and then bring it back.