I agree very much with 'vote limitations'. That would just about cure the 'big stakeholders don't leave anything for the little guys' debate. A simple and effective change that would unquestionably lead to a different slate of consensus witnesses. I'd be good with spreading the witness share out too. With vote reduction I suspect there would be routine changes in the slate.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I think that there is resistance to the idea because it takes some power away from large stakeholders to push through change. In some ways it is good to have te stability, but that is also a risk.
I actually think that a little instability might be good for us at this point in space and time. I know it's a horrible risk, but out of instability comes change.
Yes - I don't mind the instability as well as pushing some percentage of "new blood" into areas of influence.