Related to voting part, I would like to consider cognitive aspects for more active and responsible participation.
In short, max witness voting should be decreased.
Theoretically numbers of witness vote do not have differences since one can split stakes. But according to Dunbar's theory, the first cognitive threshold (i.e. best friends) is 5 at max, and the second is 15, then 30. 30 max votes mean voter should use 3rd threshold to manage full witnes vote list, which is very burdensome. Many voters cannot manage it so voting power can become somewhat concentrated.
To as many people use their vote as possible, I think 5(1st threshold) is a good value. If we want to incenticivize some active voters, between 5 and 20 can be chosen, but I personally prefer lower than 10, which is slightly lower than 50% of 21.
This is a reasonable argument. But would also require reducing the number of producers from 21 to a number less than the votes per user.
Is there any reason to do that? In my opinion if we have lower number of votes than 21, there will be multiple groups of witnesses based on different voters' preferences. This can reduce a negative perception about "whales rule all witnesses", and diversify witnesses.
You're on point good job.
Excellent point clayop. I just set up a witness in Peerplays and current witnesses in there monopolizing block production and it's very difficult to get in .. Must be the same for every graphene blockchain. Very hard for new witnesses to start producing blocks and even get a chance to start producing. It's much easier if you were there when at launch.... after launch it's gets exponentially harder to become a witness.
... so right now, I got a node running consuming resources, and not producing any blocks. Witnesses not producing blocks using VPS are not getting any return to pay for renting a server.