I read a similar argument/moan from a guy on telegram/discord.
I read your article and I perceived (maybe incorrectly) that you seem to be implying that high fee pools ARE somehow 'committed to creating a secure and valuable network ', and low fee pools AREN’T.
If so I don’t think it’s a valid argument because:
There is no reason that the pools whom provide a low fee but also stay online/be reliable/create the most blocks, are not ‘committed to creating a secure and valuable network’.
And there is no guarantee that high fee pools will be ‘committed to creating a secure and valuable network’.
There is now the pledge influence factor introduction to stop ‘the race to the bottom’, so one doesn’t have to rely on the delegators to act.
There will be a seperate funding system to give value to those improving the ecosystem, so why would I need to pay high fees to a pool to ‘benefit the system’…
As a delegator, I don’t see why I would be incentivised to pay high fees, unless there was somehow proof that those fees were benefiting the community.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, it was not my intention for that paragraph to come across the way you have described it.
“I read your article and I perceived (maybe incorrectly) that you seem to be implying that high fee pools ARE somehow 'committed to creating a secure and valuable network ', and low fee pools AREN’T.”
My core point is that we should have the objective of creating a secure and valuable network.
It is more likely that Stakepool operators will have the right mix of skills / experience to reinvest proceeds to meet the objectives mentioned above. If the delegators feel that they can also do this then that is fantastic, more power to them!!!
Low fee or high fee pools do not matter as long as we all have the core objectives in mind.