Hey @rene_securestaking!
I think I get your idea and I’d be into it if I thought it was simple, and thus could be simplified.
Firstly, I’m pretty sure such tools will come along, out of the box with redelegation mechanisms when pools lose their “top k” position, in what I would nickname “greedy wallets”.
But I agree with @RobJF that something like that becoming widespread would equal centralization.
I guess it boils down to - “There are other factors that matter”.
-
The simplest example I can think of is a single entity controlling top k pools. Many people would not want that for “intangible reasons”.
-
Myself, wanting to support decentralization and worthwhile initiatives would look for that, beyond the basics, in my pool operator. That’s real value for me.
-
In the end, with the pools representing financial aggregation, and voting power, I can imagine pools becoming like political parties, representing certain values or an agenda that may correlate to the delegators’ inclinations (and hence how they vote when proposals are presented to the network, which is somewhat similar to pools representing those “constituents”).
I think the bottom line is delegators will be able to give and take real financial power from pool ops. And since meeting the base criteria you mention is quite easy, I believe delegators will have the privilege and duty to see that pools spend their surplus profits in a way that would delight its delegators.
You can see on my post here, several pools with various obligations and missions, unrelated to enriching their delegators, that have already popped up.
Hope this offers another perspective!