in the spirit of offering feedback.... #1
Description
We want most people to be able to be able to fully verify their transactions so they have full self-sovereignty of their money.
Transaction fees pay for hashing and staking, so we can't get high security without high throughput. A lot of this document reads like a developer trying to come to their own conclusions about what the right set of trade-offs is given their own desires.
But the scaling challenge isn't to pick an arbitrary point and say, "this is the right set of compromises." The challenge is to maximize the percentage of network fees that actually secure the chain while directing as much of those fees as possible at actual network operations (instead of unrelated activities like mining or staking). In proof-of-work and proof-of-stake no revenue goes to P2P nodes and the security is provided by 51% of fee volume, so there is room for improvement.
Once a blockchain design can maximize security at arbitrary throughput / fee levels, users who want maximum security will likely use the largest chain. If a smaller chain ends up being more secure, it will be because blocksize is capped and people are paying more for easier verification. Instead of needing developers to force these trade-offs on users (typically introducing other vulnerabilities and incentive problems in the process), the market can converge on the most efficient scaling solution by aggregating user preferences into market-driven token pricing and network fees.