Hello everyone,
I’ve been following this project since the early days of Merit Circle, well before the transition to Beam. I didn’t just invest financially (and big at the time), but also in the vision: building an open, accessible, community-driven ecosystem. Today, as the Beam network matures, I think it’s important to revisit those founding ideals - especially as they relate to validator economics and decentralization.
Season 1: a realistic assessment
As a validator operating a single node (and staking only 20K/200M), fully active and properly configured almost from day one, my total rewards for Season 1 amounted to:
- 917.46 ATH + 355.71 WBEAM
- Equivalent to approximately $52 USD
In contrast, running a node via Easeflow costs $75/month. Even self-hosting involves non-trivial costs - roughly €15-25/month in electricity alone in Europe, not to mention bandwidth, hardware, and maintenance.
This means I operated at a net loss, despite full compliance and uptime.
Reward narrative vs validator reality
Yes, over $1 million in rewards were distributed - but those mostly went to large stakeholders. The mechanism is straightforward: the more BEAM and Node Tokens you stake, the more you earn.
This creates a structural imbalance:
- Validators with small capital face immediate negative returns.
- Meanwhile, large stakers - or those with strong social capital (delegators) - capture most of the value.
- The result: decentralization in infrastructure, but not in economic accessibility.
If the validator role is only viable for capital-rich participants, then we’re no longer aligned with the ethos of open networks - we’re simply reproducing scaled gatekeeping.
Aethir: a similar pattern
I also delegated a license on Aethir nearly a year ago.
Total rewards to date: 16,450 ATH, or $57 USD.
Again, far below the threshold of sustainability.
In both cases, smaller participants absorb operational cost and risk, while meaningful rewards are concentrated upstream.
Why I’m sharing this
This is not criticism for the sake of it - and certainly not FUD.
This is an effort grounded in transparency and integrity, from someone who still believes in the project and wants to see it evolve in a healthy, inclusive direction.
Some open questions for discussion:
- Can the economics of node participation be reconsidered for small, committed validators?
- Could grants, offsets, or new incentive pools be explored to ensure broader inclusion?
- Is there a roadmap for maintaining decentralization not just technically, but economically?
Continuing in good faith
I’ll submit this as a contribution to governance - not to oppose, but to strengthen.
Beam has grown from its roots in Merit Circle into something technically ambitious and aesthetically unique. Let’s make sure the values grow with it.
Thank you for your time and for building what we’re all standing on.
Kat 
Validator address: 0x6B656…8E