Took a while to collect my thoughts. Here’s my take on this proposal.
I think 1/N of the set per day, with a 2-3 day min delay is good. But, I think there’s a case to increase the min delay to 3-5 days. I would argue that a longer minimum delay constant (e.g. 3 days) actually helps self-select validators that are aligned with the “defend the fort” intuition, and thus are more prone to be agreeable to the 1/N limit.
Here’s how I would construct the argument:
-
Using a lower min constant (e.g. 1 day) sets up an anchoring bias that will lead people to underestimate how much of a commitment validating can be. This may cause some validators to regret their decision, which can result in poor retention.
-
For example, econoar, ryanseanadams and sassal have commented to the effect that 1 day is painless, this despite the delaying effects of the 1/N limit (i.e. everyone thinks they’ll manage to be the first out). So, I argue that if the min constant has no bite, it won’t be taken into consideration when deciding to stake or not, and thus might recruit less responsible validators (e.g. screw the fort, I’m just passing through, SO LET ME OUTTA HERE!).
-
If we want to balance the instantaneous security of more validators with the extended-time security of more fort-defenders, then I suggest we choose a goldilocks value for the min constant. This feels to me like 2 days minimum, but my preference would be for 3-5.
-
ADDENDUM: I feel that the choice of N is less sensitive as it will likely be discounted by most non-robotic validators. The anchoring effect of the min constant seems to be more important, at least while validators are mostly human.