How did you decide on the 20% AVW validation parameter for management polls? That seems to be the tricky one, because technically a sufficiently powerful bad actor could use 20% voting weight to change the other validation parameters to 20% as well, unless other network participants stepped in and outvoted the bad actor.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Technically yes, 20% is dangerously low, but:
Our network has demonstrated, for the size that it is, that its current whales seem to manifest the community will, and that there is a growing group of core actors, some whales and some not, that help work through situations and opportunities, inform the community, and are capable of making decisions. If a bad actor (or even one of the whales) attempts to take advantage of this low management requirement, I have confidence in the larger community and core actors to come to a rational resolution.
The number comes from the discussions before the poll. We couldn't settle on AVW requirements for the different poll-types so I chose values that seemed to be best compromises from the various opinions. The 20% management is set so low that any proposed change to this structure will easily be validated and force discussion. And because we are still a fairly tight network, as I describe above, it should be secure until we move past this initial phase of organization.
As this proposal is meant to be a scaffold from which we build something better, I would expect a proposal within 12 months that would rework or raise at least that 20% management AVW.