@monohhhh please see other ideas on how node rewards should be distributed here.
I certainly think there is merit in what you are saying. ‘Hardware’ nodes should be compensated first by the virtue of their decentralization but also if the quality and performance is greater as well this structure I am advocating for could be effective at addressing your concerns.
Would like to hear your thoughts on what category(s) this should fall under or if a new category should be added to the discussion?
‘Hardware’ I think is a misnomer because all nodes are derived from hardware its just that some hardware is used to virtualize potentially multiple instances. Whereas I believe you are meaning hardware running a single instance or hardware actually under your ‘physical control’.
I disagree though that simply operating a ‘hardware’ node or a single instance or physically controlled hardware nodes should be rewarded greater than a VPS other than for the decentralization aspect (which I do think is important and should be rewarded). First depending on each of the underlying hardware and the quality of internet connections the VPS could be better performing. If this were the case why should rewards be paid in a disproportionate way to a node that is less able to meet the demands of the network?
I think if we all look at the network objectively and say what does this network need to be successful? Then those are the things we should build a reward structure around.