I only see one bond proposal for two nodes. That actually sounds reasonable to me, just that we have posted one bond per node previously. I will revoke ono of my bonds as btcnode operator if there is consensus on there being one bond per role rather than per node.

Yeah, the number of instances a node operator runs for a role doesn't matter, the bond is for the role itself. For example a certain role might run 5 or 10 instances of something, it's not related.

the number of instances a node operator runs for a role doesn't matter, the bond is for the role itself.

In theory, the number of instances an operator runs does matter. If we have a federation of 12 Bitcoin Core nodes and one operator runs all of them, they could do much more damage than a single negligent or malicious operator, right? From a network decentralization perspective, the general intention for most operator roles was always that it's a one-node-per-operator arrangement.

In practice, however, I don't think it's a problem that we have one operator running a couple instances of something, and that they post a single bond for doing so. Indeed, I don't want there to be a perverse incentive for people to run multiple instances of a given node type just so they can collect more bond interest.

For example a certain role might run 5 or 10 instances of something, it's not related.

If this is happening, something is probably wrong. In this case it's less about posting multiple bonds than it is about asking why we are allowing this kind of centralization.

Approved on DAO voting. Cycle 10