RE: Dear Community, Let Your Voice Be Heard | Top 20 Witness Communication

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Dear Community, Let Your Voice Be Heard | Top 20 Witness Communication

View the full context

whatsup in #community • 6 years ago (edited)

I would love to see witnesses provide a position post before each hardfork where they explain what they are for, whether or not they want to accept changes and why.

However the issue is the top 20 rarely need the community vote and they know it. They don't answer to the community and they know it.

Also many perceive that they will lose votes (that matter) if they take unpopular positions.

I give you kudos for trying to help, but I'm not sure what would motivate them to communicate since there are no consequences of not communicating.

6 years ago in #community by whatsup

0.00 JAHM

7 votes

Sort:

Trending

[-]

raycoms 6 years ago (edited)

Which is something encouraged by the system itself which would have to be changed to improve this:

1: Problem: Votes that do not expire
Imagine in the real work how much less even politicians would care if people had to actively go to unvote them to remove the vote. They'd just do even less, even less transparent and they would be in power eternally.

Solution: Witness votes expires after 1 year.

This would not only encourage witnesses to be more active, but also punish inactive stakeholders for not participating in the democratic process.

2: Problem: Allowing to vote up to 30 witnesses

This automatically centralizes the chain even more, since most of the stake, as on most blockchains, is distributed to a few whales, it is easy for whales to significantly manipulate the top witnesses. This way, 1-2 big whales can already define all 2 witnesses.

Solution: Allow to vote only up to 10 witnesses.

This would decentralize the election and reduce the immense influence of the biggest whales. Allowing them to only put in a maximum of 10 top witnesses.

3: But now we come to the key point, there would have to be pressure from the stakeholders to change this (unlikely because of point 2) and witnesses would have to approve this (unlikely because of point 1).

0.00 JAHM

3 votes

[-]

jondoe 6 years ago

Yep, having 20 witnesses decide things while letting people vote for 30 is a major issue. We need to cut the limit to 10 witness votes like you proposed, or 5 would probably be even better. That would go a long ways in preventing the entire ecosystem basically being controlled by a couple of the largest stake holders like we have now. This is something that must change ASAP if we want this place to survive.