It is incredibly validating to see this network design propagate more widely, observing similarities (and permutations of it) in @Maya_Protocol and @Chainflip who also took a first-principles approach. Onwards.

When TC was being built (2018-2019), the leading PoS networks were EoS and Cosmos, both of which suffered significant PoS problems (validator stake centralising, node doxxing and network capture). TC did not copy and paste this design, instead building from first principles.

4) Allow node operators to set their own fees on an open market. TC also allows this. The exception here is that since TC Node operators secure exogenous capital, Bond Providers must be in a trusting relationship with their Operator.

3) Split the act of providing bond with node operation, and track operator scores to allow bond providers to choose. This means those that operate nodes well will attract bonds. TC added the bond provider role shortly after Chaosnet to drive up bond provision levels.

2) Instead of rewarding nodes based on bond size, cap the max bond and convert to slot-based rewards at some floating threshold. This means one large player cannot achieve economies of scale and capture the network. TC has slot-based rewards and a floating max-bond.

1) Instead of unlimited validators; have a cap (proposal is 4096). This keeps validation cost a constant, thus bandwidth on the network can increase. V's realisation that more validators does not mean more decentralisation. TC's current cap is 120, but *could* get to 1k+.