We're talking big change here.
Yeah - very big.
The consensus model should be revampbed in a few ways - one of them being the number of possible votes. 7 is a good amount. I also think that the depth of witness rewards should be spread further down the list more - for example, the top 20 take 70% - the next 30 take 20% - the last 50 take 10%.
OMG it'll make the "You are taking money out of my pocket" from the curation change look like silence.
:D
of the loudest and most persistent are small stakeholders that have never invested a cent, but they can be LOUD. And don't want to be confused with facts.
They probably overlap with all of those "egg faces" on Twitter who support crazy.
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.
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.