Interesting, thanks for sharing. I’m not yet sure that I can follow the logic, though. The spec says
collaborating to form a stake pool should require significant trust between the owners. Otherwise, everyone could choose to become a co-owner of a stake pool instead of delegating, which would render the mechanism of pledging stake ineffective.
How does the conclusion follow from the premise? How would pledging become ineffective if everybody could do it instead of delegating?
The rationale for the existence of pledge is protection from sybil attacks.
The rewards that a stake pool gets depend on a pledge of funds that the stake pool owner(s) provide. This adds a cost to creating a competitive stake pool, and protects against Sybil attacks on the stake pool level
Thus the concern seems to be that sybil protection would somehow stop working if people could cooperate on raising pledge without also trusting each other. So the protection against this type of attack is trust?
I’m sorry, I don’t get it. Surely missing something very obvious. What is it?