The writer looks forward to seeing a concrete proposal addressing this issue. Until then, it is noted that Braidpool and Radpool share a striking similarity in their foundational ideas, suggesting a potential for collaboration or merging of efforts since both projects are likely to reuse components from one another, specifically FROST and DLCs (Discreet Log Contracts).

The writer expresses curiosity about how Radpool plans to handle accounting, a detail that remains unclear. If Radpool opts for a braid-based approach, the necessity of maintaining two separate projects is questioned. Moreover, the possibility of integrating a different consensus protocol is entertained, with an acknowledgment of the numerous viable options available. However, the writer expresses reservations about deviating from protocols like braids and DAGKnight that align with Nakamoto consensus based on proof of work (PoW). These protocols are preferred due to their emphasis on the "highest work" principle, contrasting with Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) broadcasts which operate on fundamentally different principles and are not PoW-based.

Additionally, the message hints at a future discussion on why consensus is indispensable beyond just difficulty adjustments, indicating a deeper exploration into the mechanics of decentralized networks. It also suggests that both Braidpool and Radpool could gain from implementing covenants, specifically pre-committing to payouts in scenarios where FROST signing fails, highlighting a shared avenue for enhancement across both projects.