Thank you for the comment, as a matter of fact these are some of the solutions that we believe could be implemented and used for a transition into an invulnerable free set. Transaction increase and progressive reduction depending on future activity (if needed). Yet still with accessible fees at the very beginning. Due to Polkadot architecture these fees could be low for the user but much higher than current ones at the collator level.
Polkadot is meant to be as permissionless as possible. Imagine for a moment that AssetHub after Plaza gets significant transactionality and fees. The current collation system is less than ideal for permissionlessness. And if that were to happen a more violent and confrontational update is likely to happen so it’s better to lay down the basics for such transition if it ever were to happen.
This is what we want to hopefully change.
We operate validators on Polkadot so we are aware of costs. Polkadot should always remain the main objective for stability and whatever the chain needs, the treasury should be able to provide. As for Kusama, we already hold the view that it needs to take it’s own path as being the eternal livenet didn’t pan out as well and these Kusama operation costs are far above the current and future interest (if it remains on the same path). So if it were up to us, we’d just attempt to migrate progressively to a fully permissionless collator set for Kusama AssetHub right now prior to Plaza, even if the upgrade plan doesn’t pan out. A progressive approach should eliminate these withholding attack risks and frankly, could make staking on Kusama interesting again.
Aren’t we already at a point where on some system chains like AssetHub we have already more interested parties willing to collate in anticipation of Plaza thus the requirement of invulnerables for such anticipated chains becoming less important?