diff --git a/EIPS/eip-908.md b/EIPS/eip-908.md
index e5eb67ed..2b108ed1 100644
--- a/EIPS/eip-908.md
+++ b/EIPS/eip-908.md
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ This EIP proposes to make a change to the protocol to provide a reward to full n
 ## Motivation
 Currently there is a lack of incentives for anyone to run a full node, while joining a mining pool is not really economical if one has to purchase a mining rig (several GPUs) now, since there is unlikely to be a return on investment by the time that Ethereum transitions to hybrid Proof-of-Work/Proof-of-Stake, then full PoS. Additionally, providing a reward for clients gives a revenue stream that is independent of state channels, which are less secure, although this insecurity can be offset by mechanisms such as insurance, bonded payments and time locks. Rationalising that investors may invest in a client because it is an enabler for the Ethereum ecosystem (and thus opening up investment opportunities) may not scale very well, and it seems that it is more sustainable to monetize the client as part of the service(s) it provides.
 
-Incentivizing client development and running full nodes would more directly incentivize resource provision in the protocol, preventing a tragedy of the commons where there is an extreme lack of supply and excess demand leading to the protocol being unusable. Implementing this as a layer 2 solution may not ensure the sustainability of the protocol, since not everyone would use it; if the protocol doesn't have any cost for full nodes to validate transactions, then people will take advantage of that and not use the layer 2 solution. It seems that you should at least have the part where the reward is provided in protocol, but then that and the user agent signature doesn't really add anything else to the protocol, so doing some part in-protocol and some part e.g. the verification or a verification-game off-protocol could be done, but it's already done in protocol. Note also that some computationally expensive tasks are too challenging to feasibly do in protocol, e.g. due to not fitting in the gas limit, could be done with Truebit, where verifiers have an incentive. 
+Incentivizing client development and running full nodes would more directly incentivize resource provision in the protocol, preventing a tragedy of the commons (see [here](https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/452.pdf#subsection.2.1) for an analysis in the context of Bitcoin and PoW) where there is an extreme lack of supply and excess demand leading to the protocol being unusable. Implementing this as a layer 2 solution may not ensure the sustainability of the protocol, since not everyone would use it; if the protocol doesn't have any cost for full nodes to validate transactions, then people will take advantage of that and not use the layer 2 solution. It seems that you should at least have the part where the reward is provided in protocol, but then that and the user agent signature doesn't really add anything else to the protocol, so doing some part in-protocol and some part e.g. the verification or a verification-game off-protocol could be done, but it's already done in protocol. Note also that some computationally expensive tasks are too challenging to feasibly do in protocol, e.g. due to not fitting in the gas limit, could be done with Truebit, where verifiers have an incentive. 
 
 Not providing incentives for clients is an issue now as there is less incentive to build a client that aligns with the needs of users, funds need to be raised externally to the protocol to fund client development, which is not as decentralized. Not providing incentives for full nodes validating transactions may not seem like as much of an issue now, but not doing so could hinder the growth of the protocol. Of course, incentives aren't enough, it also needs to be technically decentralized so that it is ideally possible for a mainstream computer to be a verifying full node, or at least a mainstream high-end desktop computer with GPUs in the case of PoW.