Random ORV proposal

[davidborrell74]

Proposal

Boost Nano’s Decentralization with Random Initial Representatives (Fighting the "Default Rep" Problem)

The Problem

We all know Nano’s security relies on decentralized voting weight (ORV). Yet too many users:

• Stick with default reps (e.g., exchanges, top-listed nodes).
• Don’t redelegate due to inertia or lack of awareness.
• This slowly centralizes voting power → risking censorship and attacks.

The Idea

When creating a new Nano account, auto-assign a random representative from a vetted pool. (Users can still change it instantly! This is just the starting point.).

Why Random?

• Kills the "default effect": No more 80%+ weight on top 5 nodes.
• Incentivizes small nodes: New wallets = automatic vote dispersion → more reps matter.
• Geo-resilience: Randomness naturally distributes votes globally.

Pros

• Fights centralization.
• Rewards reliable small reps.
• Auto-scales decentralization.

Cons & Fixes

• Bad nodes? → Only include reps with: uptime >95% + history >3mo
• Sybil attacks? → Require minimum self-stake or reputation system
• Complexity? → Use Verifiable Random Functions (VRF) for fairness

Hybrid Implementation Plan

• Phase 1: Random delegation → New wallets pick from pre-vetted nodes (uptime, bandwidth, stake requirements).
• Phase 2: User tools → In-wallet alerts: "Your rep’s uptime dropped to 90% – redelegate?"
• Phase 3: Auto-redelegation → If a node fails votes auto-move to a backup (like a "lightning rod" rep)

Why Nano Needs This

• Today: Top 3 reps hold ~35% voting weight. Random assignment could cut this by 50%+ in 2 years.
• User experience: Zero effort for new users. They "opt-in" to decentralization by default.
• Unique advantage: Makes Nano’s ORV truly passive and anti-fragile.

Discussion Questions

• Would you support this as a "default wallet feature"?
• How should we filter "qualified" nodes**? (Uptime? Stake? Manual review?)
• Could this be a "protocol update" or just a "wallet-level fix"?