I must admit that was something I didn't care for with the original SPR masternode testing. I didn't understand the benefits of the highest scoring masternodes getting paid. Am I missing a really obvious benefit? Surely the network can only be fair if all masternodes get paid roughly the same amount over a period of time?
Why define a max number of masternodes? Surely the ROI, coin supply and value of SPR will define this organically? People won't run masternodes at a loss for long...
I also remain to be convinced of the dynamic masternode model other than its brilliant ease of setup. Once again...am I missing a fundamental advantage?
The score was designed to sort the men from the boys.
Servicenode owners will try to load their nodes with as little SPR as possable (so to have move nodes/profit).
This create's instability in the network, as people are getting kicked off the list because of the small amount in the node.
So to create some stability, long term nodes that are well funded get a higher rating and probably more SPR block rewards.
That's my understanding anyway
Their not paid more because that's in the code. There paid more because they're more consistent, handle more transactions and respond 100% of the time.
Also the larger your servicenode balance is, the larger transactions your node can handle. And we need the ability to handle large transactions so we need large wallets.
Am i right in saying Dash nodes can only handle 1000 dash at a time?
Ok, so in this hypothesis the people with the bigger SPR wallets with VPS hosted masternodes would receive more payments than somebody with one masternode hosted on their macbook. Doesn't seem right somehow. Anyway...new ANN today. Plenty of time to thrash out semantics and test various hypotheses!