You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: How Vote Incentivization Monopolizes Delegated Proof of Stake

in #dpos4 years ago

What you describe is a closed economic system which spirals down to it's own destruction.

I think the problem in itself is not solvable, but that should not necessarily be discouraging.

I believe there is a constructive approach that avoids and works around the inherent problem you describe. And it is the "workaround" applied day-in, day-out naturally in our economies.

It's called "economic growth" and it consists in seeking to maintain a dynamic equilibrium by continuously expanding the system

So instead of reasoning in a closed system which limits the choices of Charlie and David (all they can do is vote), it is beneficial to continuously add choices, to give Charlie and David more choices for their time and resources

There appears to be no stable equilibrium though, so this workaround is like a "bicycle ride": as soon as you stop adding new choices for Charlie and Dave, "you fall".

Happy to read your thoughts on this

Posted using Partiko Android

Sort:  

participating in a vote buying scheme

Ring any bells?

You are at best only reducing the effective inflation rate, and otherwise extracting value from anyone not participating in your scheme

I'm not bitter... Oh wait. Yes I am.

Wonder how much inflation you along with other nabbed by participating in the vote buying / selling schemes.

Why should our kind work with your kind now? How can we know y'all won't take advantage again?

Happy to read your thoughts on this

So, the "continuous growth" economic property is certainly an interesting one to explore (the most common example being social security), but I don't believe it applies here. Once a system has degraded in this way, there is little to no room for newcomers, so growth of the candidates is unlikely. In addition, growth of voting participants become subject to the same decision trees as the previous participants, still leaving them with little choice.