Yes, the (CC, MIT, …) is intended to make clear the “By IT Workers For IT Workers” is sardonic - see the reference at the end of this post if curious about the idea that the altruism of the tech sector is overstated (cough effective altruism cough ).
It dawned on me that it may be possible to characterize the Polkadot Network by the following:
A blockchain network where fees are only charged to blockchain consumers. The block producers are not charged anything.
In the short run, it is likely true that IT workers (we are a wider set than comp. sci. students) constitute the majority of block consumers.
However, I don’t think anyone can seriously argue that in the long run, the goal is to have blockchains remain a tech sector ghetto.
Hence, a long run expectation is the fee burden will fall solely on the consumer. It appears block producers can expect to pay nothing. Of course, they pay there own opex and capex. But apparently the networks are not explicitly charging them for any network expenses.
Note here I do mean BPs.
The nomination/delegation functionality is an investment scheme. So under this hypothesis, that IT workers don’t charge themselves, we would expect BPs to face some fees related to providing the staking/delegating network infrastructure, which is finance (DeFi).
But, are BPs even charged fees related to supporting the operation of the investment schemes?
Curious:
Can anyone point to a blockchain network where the block producers, face some fee structure when they engage in no pooled or nominated/delegated staking?
That is the BP activities are underwritten by their own capital.
A twist on revealed preferences similar in spirit to The Simple Economics of Open Source published here.
I should preempt one possible explanation:
Our staking reward schedule is net of BP related fees. So the BP are paying, by having a lower rewards schedule.
Great. Please link to the proof that this is the equilibrium net-of-BP-fees schedule under the assumption of fees. Ideally, with both fixed and proportional fees.