The main issue with PoS is that it has the worst of both worlds, you end up with just a few majority validators
Historically, PoS alone is not sufficient. You need hybrid consensus with PoS in it to succeed and offer a better governance model.
In DPoS type of governance, the primary aim is scaling capacity, and in a social media like Hive you can not afford higher latency, which is always a non-starter, so no matter how some others feel on the decentralization part or only 20 witnesses running the network, the truth is 20 witnesses are sufficient enough to ensure decentralized governance all the time. If in DPoS, we can work on geographical decentralization then it would work wonderfully.
DPoS for other types of networks may have issues, but when you see Hive as a social media product then you have DPoS as the best option. We can add additional layers of security to check any kind of manipulation and I am sure that will evolve in time.
With HiveGov, I can vote, for free, with any amount of HIVE., I simply power up and vote for the up to 30 validators I want, and that's it.
I feel like voting up to 30 validators needs to be changed. It's like a proportional representation, not a definite representation. I am not sure, what exactly the rational behind voting 30 witnesses at one go is. But I feel like this number needs to be reduced so that we can have better permutations & combinations for top 20.
Vote buying is not possible to do with larger stakeholders, as the witness would not make enough to justify a larger stakeholder to vote in a bad validator because the stakeholder has much more to lose with the locked up stake than to earn crumbs from a crumby shady validator.
Could not agree anymore.
I have been all over the place when it comes to how many votes a person should get for witnesses. I have game theorized 1t1v, 1t30v and everything in between. I believe it was smooth who said that they believed unlimited votes would be the way to go, and I tend to agree with that route. As a stakeholder, one of your reasonability to your investment is to vote in as many good actors as possible as witness.
1t1v is good under the threat of a 51% attack, because it chops the attacker at the knees, however, it is not the most censorship resistant when coin distribution is good. So, in theory, the best approach might be to have a "kill switch" that turns to 1t1v if for some reason there as a 51% voting threat. But, we can always fork, and we should hope to be not under any threats of takeover as we have the 1 month delay.