I will try to step in and share my opinion about the decouple proposal.
Apologies if some of my replies will be slightly off-topic or inconsistent with the OP intention (or his statements), but it is difficult for me to follow the discussion here due to the automatic translation accuracy (not good at all).
Being a member of the committee, I think it is important that you know what is my general view about the proposal to separate the price feeding operation from the block production operation.
My opinion will be reflected in the event that the committee is asked to express itself by voting for applying the changes inside such a proposal. It is therefore important that you are aware as well so to be able to cast your vote accordingly.
I am totally in favor of the separation of price feeding from block production.
In the event that the committee members are asked to cast a vote to support or reject such separation, I will vote to support it.
I think it is important to acknowledge that recent (and eventually future) events about unvoting witnesses to change the bitassets fed price put some danger (as security, safety, and stability) to the whole platform. The willingness of the community and it's stakeholders to express their own opinion and change some rules about a key component as the price feeding is understandable, but we must ensure that this is possible without jeopardizing the security of the entire blockchain.
I also think that bigger changes would probably be needed to best address some other problems that currently affect our bitassets. Some of those changes are included in the BSIP83 draft. At the same time, I understand the reluctance to support such a big proposal that would need a good amount of work, code and time by the core-team.
I, therefore agree on trying to implement these changes with the tools we have available now, without adding new code.
In my opinion, the committee should change major bitassets flag so to not be automatically fed by witnesses anymore, but instead to be fed by a selected list of "feeders".
For start, such feeders list should actually be the currently active witnesses.
This, in my opinion, makes sense because currently active witnesses are already feeding the price for bitassets, are already following the community will, have already implemented some important BSIPs and have already the infrastructure (node) and code (script) needed for such operations. Selecting the currently active witnesses as the initial feeders list would allow us to make the transition as smooth as possible, with the lowest possible risk of price feeding inconveniences and failures.
After the switch is made, the committee would be able to modify the feeders list to remove those witnesses that are not interested in price feeding (or are not considered worthy and fit for the role), and at the same time add those community members who are instead interested to fill and apply for the price feeding role. The committee can look for community feedback and recommendation about how exactly apply these modifications.
About other inputs from the OP:
- I am not sure we really need a bailment from feeders
- We instead can have a no-pay-period during which feeders are checked to ensure their setup is in line with what is required. If not, they will be voted out from the feeders list and will get no pay for their first period. This could also help reduce committee fund management
- We can use worker-poll to determine the initial feeders reward. Suggestion for values in these worker-polls can be made by the committee, considering the costs that the feeders will have to bear.
I hope everything I wrote above is clear enough to not create misunderstandings due to translation errors.