I honestly thought about this but then came to conclusion of how this could prevent abuse as well. Inactive, forgotten accounts voting on a random inactive/bad proposal that lasts 3 years. While the chances aren't high, their vote could be the deciding factor whether the proposal is funded or not.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It's a difference in impact. Maximum abuse of proposals is about $5k a day loss that will replenish itself as by design. Maximum abuse of block production is an irreversible $5k a minute loss, and I'm being highly generous here.
If there's enough inactive accounts to be the deciding factor on a single proposal(these unlike witnesses do have expiration dates), others who have voted for the proposal might want to unvote if its not being met. 22 million HP is quite a bar to reach to start getting funded. And if a proposal is getting funded but its work is being met, then theres no problem with that, no matter where the votes come from. It's like autovoters on posts to me.
That is a valid point in ref. to the DHF being open to attack.
However, the proxy expiration could eventually affect the proposal votes, but never to the point that the funds allocated for the DHF are put at risk.
I will have to agree with @guiltyparties in ref to the DHF voting.