@flo Thank you for your message, and Hi 
The limit increase simple represents what’s possible with the current software stack and the protocol. What people make of it is up to them and their business models (see my remarks on the Temp Check below).
We, the DAO, should allow for maximum possibilities; therefore, I support increasing the maximum to 3000 validators, provided this doesn’t require adding new hardware resources (I’m not an operator, but this seems to be the general understanding).
As far as I understand the data, this number is safe for the current state of the network. If there are more updates to the network, like we’ve seen with the Alan fork, the DAO should increase the limit even further, and let the “market decide” what people do with this new possibility. So, yes, I think there could be more of such increases, but I have not heard of any fundamental breakthrough for the next couple of weeks/months!?
As for your comment on Pectra, I assume you mean network and operator fees that account for effective balance, right?
I think you’re aware of the adjustments made to the Incentivized Mainnet Program, which accounts for some of these effects.
As for the support of Pectra consolidated validators on a fee level, I have two thoughts:
- I’ve been a strong advocate myself and worried that not implementing a change to the fee model right from the get-go as a response to Petra is a mistake. It turns out I was wrong, and the core team’s estimate that only a very small number of validators would consolidate was correct. Pectra.info shows me that out of +1M Validators, only 3,663* did consolidate. Given the high costs of implementation and the extra complexity, it was wise to wait and see.
- The decision was also delayed because we’ll have more flexibility when SSV 2.0 and the SSV Chain arrive. As far as I understand the situation, the DVT component of SSV (yes, we have DVT and bApps) could itself be build as a bApp and allow for much more flexibility when it comes to fee models or other business models. My understanding is that all of this will be revisited once that vision has progressed, allowing for solutions far beyond what we think it could be today.
*Not entirely sure if the number is 100% correct, as the chart on the page looks different, but it is very low.
As to your comment on the heated debates, I’m 100% sharing your sentiment that it has to end. The good news is, it has been sorted in private between the conflicting parties, and most of it is due to misunderstanding as a result of asynchronous work patterns, language barriers, and individual needs. We had many calls in the last weeks and I’m especially happy to present a major breakthrough with the [TEMP CHECK] Revisiting the Operator Marketplace and Fee Models.
This is a direct result of the very first (and only) heated debate surrounding DIP-32. It’s worth noting that the remarks we’ve seen from others above, which led to certain emotions , are also rooted in the problems presented in this temp check. I wish the temp check had hit the forum earlier, but it is a difficult and complex matter. But finally, all of these discussions around small vs. big, public vs. private, fees vs. rewards have a home and I hope everyone feels their opinion heard and we can return to the pre DIP-32 state of the DAO, which is what I always referred to “the kindest DAO in the space” (I think you heard me say that in public many times 
)
So, let’s hug @everyone 
and keep the good questions coming.
Ben
