RE: The 2nd Layer and losing rewards
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Change is scary. Big change is terrifying. We're talking big change here.
I think that you are right, this change (or this sort of change) needs to happen to let this place grow and prosper at somewhere near it's potential. It would certainly make it easier for newcomers to navigate and participate.
For me, before I can support the added layer on the chain decay voting needs to be dealt with. We need consensus, but we need ACTIVE consensus. Non present voting is a drag on the whole system and tends to stifle debate. If the people that actually have 'skin in the game' are the ones forming the consensus then good on it.
Damn. Reading over that it might sound like I'm bitching about stake weighted voting. I'm not, it's how it HAS to be. It is, after all, a business.
Can you imagine the noise when this is proposed? OMG it'll make the "You are taking money out of my pocket" from the curation change look like silence. Many (probably most) of the loudest and most persistent are small stakeholders that have never invested a cent, but they can be LOUD. And don't want to be confused with facts.
Thanks for a thoughtful and considered post on the subject. This and others like it can move the needle of debate AND consensus.
Yeah - very big.
The consensus model should be revampbed in a few ways - one of them being the number of possible votes. 7 is a good amount. I also think that the depth of witness rewards should be spread further down the list more - for example, the top 20 take 70% - the next 30 take 20% - the last 50 take 10%.
:D
They probably overlap with all of those "egg faces" on Twitter who support crazy.
I agree very much with 'vote limitations'. That would just about cure the 'big stakeholders don't leave anything for the little guys' debate. A simple and effective change that would unquestionably lead to a different slate of consensus witnesses. I'd be good with spreading the witness share out too. With vote reduction I suspect there would be routine changes in the slate.
I think that there is resistance to the idea because it takes some power away from large stakeholders to push through change. In some ways it is good to have te stability, but that is also a risk.
I actually think that a little instability might be good for us at this point in space and time. I know it's a horrible risk, but out of instability comes change.
Yes - I don't mind the instability as well as pushing some percentage of "new blood" into areas of influence.