People can just distribute the stake between multiple accounts to get more governance votes!
Despite this the smaller votes would still be strengthened would they not? It would still improve the situation overall?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Yes, but the large stakeholders can distribute the stake between multiple accounts and have a lot of influence like before. The account weight/reputation is crucial here ... assigning a proper value for account weight can improve the system even without the square root of the stake . It is a challenge to do that .
Large stakeholders will be able to distribute between more accounts and build up reputation faster. If we dissociate reputation from stake it might open up reputation trading, which would be even worse.
Idea is good in theory, but I am afraid that risks of trying to implement it are too severe because small misstep can kill entire blockchain. (or force another HF)
I'm not hard suggesting anything here. Just exploring and trying to stay open minded about things.
These are unmarked waters and we dont know what will happen until we try something. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is a definition of madness :)
Also the post just mention principles and not exact solution. We can go with small steps, not a radical change and see where it goes. One new rule for accounts is already implemented... new account needs at least one month to be eligible to vote for governance. Another easy one can be that accounts with zero, or close to zero activity cant vote as well ... etc...
definition of madness is good reminder here:)
Exploring new governance options is good thing for sure, but at the same time we need to be REALLY careful, because one mistake can mean disaster. I am not against progress here, I would love it, its just very dangerous area that needs to be approached carefully.