In order to address that problem, we discussed ways to incentivize crunching smaller projects if they fall below a certain threshold; that solution is discussed in the third point of the "Impact of the Changes" section.
However, I'd like to point out a few things:
- The Gridcoin network only supplies around 46% of TNGrid's RAC - see
's post from today, first table, "Team RAC vs Overall RAC %". So even if all of the Gridcoin crunchers left, TNGrid would still have more than half of their computing power.
- It's not certain that people will just leave smaller projects if there is no artificial incentive to crunch them, so it's quite likely that TNGrid would still keep a good number of Gridcoin crunchers.
- The project was launched before Gridcoin was even created, so they must have had funding and resources before Gridcoin came along. For this reason, I don't think that the project would be "dead" if we dropped the artificial incentive to crunch it.
Personally, I advocate for total normalization without artificial incentives - I think that there are other ways to incentivize people to crunch smaller projects than the incentives that we currently have in place.
However, I understand that others in our community do not agree, and that's what the compromise was intended to address - there is still a way to economically incentivize crunching smaller projects whilst also dropping our current reward mechanism in favor of the one that I'm proposing. For that reason, I don't think that this issue affects the viability or desirability of adopting this proposal, since it also has many other benefits.
RE: Update to the Gridcoin Reward Mechanism Proposal