@florentina57 Thanks for the detailed feedback — and for the correction on self-stake. You’re right, there’s no minimum currently. That language was in v1.0 but removed in v1.1 — the updated proposal relies purely on reducing max_validators from 1000→500 and letting the network select the top 500 by total stake. No artificial floor.
The WFC 573 context is really useful. I hadn’t fully connected the dots: if Kusama is already committed to 32-core JAM (which passed), then the long-term validator requirement is ~96, not 1000. That makes 500 a transitional step, not a radical cut. The capacity objection from Ref 543 becomes moot — we’re not reducing capacity, we’re aligning validator count with a future that’s already been approved.
500 keeps decentralization healthy while improving validator economics. Long-term, ~96 becomes a natural floor based on JAM’s 32-core design — and if capacity grows, we can always scale validators back up. The parameter is tunable in both directions.
On the economist review — I’d genuinely welcome that. If anyone knows an economist like Jonas, invite them to weigh in on this thread. Better to have the numbers stress-tested now than after a referendum passes.
One thought on JAM and inflation: WFC 573 mentions security costs could drop to ~2.4% with fewer validators. If that’s where we’re headed, the base inflation rate matters less over time — it’ll naturally shrink as validator count drops. Burns become the main lever for fine-tuning supply. Maybe this proposal is as much about building that infrastructure now as it is about the immediate 5% target.
@SAM Thanks for the support. Agreed on treasury discipline — burns mean nothing if spending outpaces them.