It bothers me a lot the fact each account has the right to cast more witness votes(30 votes) than there are spots among the Top 20. Specially if some day a billionaire decides to purchase huge amounts of Hive to control the chain. The idea is that he can purchase a position among the Top 20, but not the whole Top 20.
Possible solutions:
- You have the right to vote only for ONE witness(I don't like this solution either)
- Vote value divided among the witnesses you voted for.
- Can be a static division:
- Can be done with removal of the hard limit of 30 or increase to, let's say, 100.
- The less witness you support, more support each one gets.
- Vote distribution can also be dynamic, where one allocate the percentage of vesting power destined to each witness.
- Can be a static division:
And such implementation can be only for votes cast AFTER a HF.
Just think about it.
If you have a spare vote...
Vote for me as your Hive Witness
If you want to support Brazilian creators...
I strongly agree that 30 witness votes is horribly unfair. In an ordinary curation, a whale can outvote me by a massive margin. Voting for witnesses however, the whale can outvote me by 30x that massive margin, because we each get 30 votes based on our stake. This makes Hive purely plutocratically governed.
I strongly advocate dynamic allocation of witness votes, where we can determine how much of our stake to throw behind any witness, and support as many witnesses as we like, but the more witnesses we vote for the more thinly we spread our stake. Or, we can vote all our stake for one witness. This decreases the advantage in governance whales have to 1/30th of what it is now. Whales still massively outweigh the rest of us and Hive will remain a plutocracy, but it will be far more obvious to folks baffled by the 30 witness vote multiplication of stake weight. It will make collusion and quid pro quos much easier to spot. While distribution of stake is inequitable, dynamic allocation to witnesses makes it 30x more equitable than it currently is, and will enable folks auditing governance to spot and call out shenanigans to the community, which will help hold whales to account for their actions.
Thanks!
and unicorns like you should have 30x the vote (it's a joke in case you don't get it) 😂
It's those that don't want power that should have it, you mean?
In principle, they should be the ones who are really going to work for the community, and not eat up the community.
I like what you propose, it seems very rational to me and I have started following you today, I have also given you my vote as a witness and to the community of Brazil as well, since I share with several creators from the country on a daily basis, and I am a witness of the quality and good work they offer on their blogs here on hive.
All the best.
Thank you. Good to see more people agree with me.
Isn't it more logical to slowly increase the top-20 to a top-N?
Another interesting concept could be moving some of the DPOS to POS. I think APR is a good candidate. I find myself voting for witnesses I know hardly anything about, including a few without a price feed, because the high-APR votes of the witnesses I know more about and respect is just too much outside of what I feel is good for the chain.
It would be far more complicated to increase the size of what I call the (aka. Top20).
Better to just implement the vote dilution to all votes cast beyond a future Hard Fork.
Also, APR is voted by witnesses, and you can openly see the vote. You should vote for witnesses that agree more closely with your position. But I agree that some decisions should be by a larger council. Let's say, the Top100?