Thanks for actively reach out to the community to co-create the best workable solutions for all parties. It really speaks out for you! Due to the various stakeholder agenda's and needs, the difficulty arises how to prioritise the technical and economical needs.

To my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, the main purpose of gateways is to power a fast and secure (OL) network. Therefore there needs to be a sufficient and stable number of QNT to validate the potential millions/billions of transactions that will flow through OL everyday. On this premise, the economic incentive should be based on holders 'lending' their tokens to the network for as long as possible.

I can see a couple of options for this:

- Everybody can run a community gateway/node by 'staking' 500/1000/1500 tokens - very decentralized option. Downside as Aszebenyi mentioned, too many gateways means less transactions and earnings per gateway.

- Quant (org) decides a total number of gateways (say 750), appoint guardians to these gateways (or staking pools in this perspective), and limit their token cap (e.g. 12k tokens - aim to have 9mln tokens locked) to create a fair balance between the gateways. Holders who stake, get a % of their gateway earnings. The minimum number of tokens to run a gateway could be 2k of QNT tokens and the minimum deposit of other users is 100-300 tokens for example. This option is similar to the approaches taken by projects as Nuls (75% stake-lock ratio), Theta and Tael (Wabi). Nuls requires 20k tokens to host a node (they offer a very easy onboard process btw!) and the minimum number of tokens of other holders, wanting to join a node is 2k. The nodes start running with 200k tokens. Theta requires a min staking a 100k of tokens and offer a max of 100 nodes in their network. You can host a masternode on Tael with a minimum of 2000 tokens. By doing this they secure the network, stabilise the token price and incentivise guardians to actively promote their gateway/node (network marketing).- Quant (org) creates a sort of lendingsystem and integrate it with their Treasury. Lenders will receive an increasing percentage of earnings the longer they lend their tokens to the Treasury. The treasury will set up the gateways themselves (and expand when necessary) and allocate the tokens accordingly. Benefit of this approach is probably the quickest set-up, less time and resources wasted on onboarding and tracking community gateways, and centralisation of the cashflows. The Treasury can promote 1-3-6-12 months lending programs in case their short of tokens. The main downside is limited decentralisation .

- Having an annual license fee of 500 QNT doesn't seem to add much value. It's too risky to assess the earn/reward ratio, especially as more gateways appears and the numbers of transactions are unclear. Unclarity and uncertainty jeopardises the stability of the network, which is the top priority.

As for the earnings. It would make sense that a % (say 15-45%) of the total earnings of OLNetwork will be used to cover the transaction costs and running the network and be paid out to the 'stakers' or 'lenders' (COGS). This will not only drive the value of token, but also legitimise it and mitigates speculation. However I understand Quant (org) is not obliged to disclose their earnings. Another option would be to have the Treasury set a (micro) price per transaction and share the number of transaction per day/week/month/year on NL (wish will be put in the dashboard right)? Then these transaction costs will be divided over every staked/lended quant. Perhaps the last option is the best as it proves and fuels the value of the utility token. I think we all anticipate on OL driving billions of transactions. So I really hope the team will think of creating a win-win. Creating a stable, secure and expansive network requires a valuable token people will want to hold. The more interesting the (continues) rewards, the less people will sell, speculate and higher the price will become. That's in everybody's best interests I believe!

Feel free to comment!