The idea is not to turn running a validator into a secondary activity. The idea is to directly reward those that are improving network health. Let's take a great example from this year. We had a large group of validators provide crucial help on the alpenglow community cluster. This group directly helped us make sure alpenglow had a boring yet successful release. With so much stake tied up in a large sfdp, there would be no way to potentially reward that set. These changes help us work with more validators that are providing help to the network. Reply to @lux8net: Many validators don’t build side projects, but I personally know several highly skilled professionals who are excellent at what they actually do: running validators. If you look at the core group of validators who still operate with 0% commission, have relatively small stakes, and rely heavily on SFP, you’ll find that almost every one of them outperforms validators with much larger stakes. They have higher uptime, higher APY, and better results across virtually every metric that matters when evaluating validator performance. That’s why I believe many validators should be judged primarily on their core responsibility: running a validator. And if the idea is to turn validator into a secondary activity for projects whose main focus lies elsewhere, I don’t think that will lead to good results, especially on a network like Solana, where performance is one of the highest priorities.