What I’m saying is that “pooling,” in the sense I assume you mean, isn’t possible on the SAFE network, or if possible, wouldn’t result in more efficiency but less, thus reducing the reward.
Now if you’re talking about large companies, or whatever, putting up lots of nodes on high speed computers, located on ultrahigh bandwidth trunks, thus increasing their reward due to more reliable response, etc., cheers. I guess that would be centralization after a sort, but it would be in competition with others doing the same thing, as well as the rest of less well equipped individuals in the world who will be running their home nodes, maybe being less efficient but still being able to farm effectively, if less efficiently.
If we’re still not understanding, define what you mean specifically by pooling. Maybe we’re using the term differently.
My use of the term refers to various actors (perhaps large and small) assigning both their resources and rewards to a central pool of some sort and then taking the rewards back in proportion effort/resource put in. In a way, that’s what the SAFE network already does atomically, so any further effort at pooling would be superfluous. (This is, I think, the key point.)
Rackspace might decide to start running nodes on some of its servers, on high bandwidth trunk lines and thus be really reliable, low-latency contributors to the network, but it would profit them nothing to team up with me or you, or even Amazon (and I’m not sure such a team-up is possible, not to mention practical). The only way anyone would profit from such a pool would be due to a miscalculation of proof of resource that gave a less powerful, less efficient node more credit than it merited. Then that node MIGHT skim some marginal advantage. It might also go the other way. But who’d want to play?