Yeah, bad PR move, but you're right, it's all voluntary and no one is entitled to anything.
I need to see changes to how witnesses are selected and I need to see a change away from a plutocracy.
Have any ideas? I've been working on blockchain governance stuff for a couple years now with eosDAC, EOS Foundation, and such. It's not an easy problem to solve. Easy to critique and complain about, difficult to make better. Most solutions not fully thought out fail due to sybil attack.
What I feel is the most fair thing to do is have network influence be based on stake length *stake amount. This allows for someone with 50k HIVE to have the same influence over the network as the person with 500K HIVE if the person with 50K HIVE is willing to stake for 10x the length of time.
The Polkadot blockchain is implementing this design for on-chain governance, and I think its a great way to do it. This allows people to have a larger share in decisions if they are willing to stick it out longer. I believe it would be good for the price too, because I bet you'd find a lot of people locking up their HIVE for years in order to have more influence.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Not a bad idea!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit