Let's address the /24 subnet limitation ipothetic removal

[Toyoo]

@snorkel

It has been sugested that for the second node, the SNO should make a deposit/ a collateral.

I won’t support this proposal until partial graceful exit will get implemented. Many small nodes is the workaround to the lack of partial graceful exit for those SNOs who actually want to realize the unused space ideal and wish they could scale down a node when they need space for other activities.

@snorkel

Also it has been sugested that in the future, if you want to make a node, you can make a deposit that will eliminate the need for the held amount.

I don’t really see how a deposit is better than the held amount.

@snorkel

Personaly I don’t realy care for the /24 limitation, just for /32 limitation.

The way I see it, /32 vs. /24 doesn’t help home SNOs (who’d have a single IP address anyway), but it would tremendously help large SNOs (for whom getting a set of consecutive IP addresses would be easy). So why bother changing it?

If you really wanted to force more decentralization to increase the number of independent fault domains, there were proposals to base the traffic allocation on autonomous systems or geolocation based on latency measurements, both in this thread. So far /24 is still not that bad though.