so i'd seen this nostrocket word around here and there so i read a bit more of the site

it's a distributed consensus!

is there some reason why you are borrowing the stake fraud as a membership filter instead of using a simple membership voting system for admission?

i presume it's also based on the 2/3 minimum BFT of the 1999 pBFT protocol?

i agree that mechanisms to rank members of a pBFT consensus by their failures to vote with the consensus are a good thing in general but if you are not actively monitoring your node on such a system you shouldn't be a member either, so expulsion should also be a consensus decision

just my thoughts on it - i think that it's a straight up fraud calling it "stake" when trust only needs to satisfy 2/3 correct, and non-byzantine faults are part of that failure tolerance and automatic systems of changing membership can be gamed

that last point is my biggest gripe with the staking membership competition

having a lot of money is not the same as being trustworthy, and trust is not a scoring system that can, or will ever be able to be turned into a consensus, the wreckage of failures of trust score systems in already existing history should be a warning not an encouragement to choose different ways about cluster memberships