Well what I found it very weird was... exchanges thinking about meddling into a blockchain... it isn't their job to do that... with customers funds... 30 million steem of customers funds risk of losing that funds but worst of all losing their credibility...
It's the same if new York exchange is using customers funds of tesla to get a votingright into tesla... you know? What is next... they lost their credibility by doing this... It's not hard to say it's my vision not others. Ohhh waaiit I don't want to go to mars I will use all the stock of elon musk on launchday and say hey! Don't go to mars... solve problems here first!
That is more a thing what keeps going rounds in my head. How is it possible that an exchange... a few exchanges desides what happens in a blockchain?
Yes, it was pretty crappy that they did that... But they worked under the mistaken assumption that they were acting to secure the chain.
I would argue that it isn't the same analogy. The NYSE is a clearing house for trades and does not hold any assets in custody. As far as I know, if you have stocks under custody (asset management like a pension fund) you don't directly control the voting either, this would be a more accurate analogy. In other POS crypto, there is explicit consent that the exchanges will use your stake in exchange for block reward distribution.
That said, crypto is so unregulated that any a ology is likely broken...
Which brings us to this... Our current model of dpos is broken because it allowed this to happen. We trusted that exchanges and large stakeholders wouldn't collude... But it is possible under the governance rules. Specifically, 30 votes and 20 consensus witnesses.
In a true decentralised network, we shouldn't be relying on words, trust and assumptions. This is the greater problem... However, a true solution will likely involve exchanges and large stakeholders having representation and veto in the consensus witnesses (which may be more than 20...) and old witnesses losing either position and/or revenue.
This, it needs vision from the old witnesses... Or will self interest be stronger?
Well what must be changed must be changed. Like that 30 votes top 20 witnesses.
Also in a view of Someone taking over... If I had invested 1 mil euro last year I would have voted on the old witnesses to turn the power back but... that would mean that I a major stakeholder meddle in a war also... to protect my investment and believe me I would go very very far in that knowing that besides the 1 mill invested I would have much more funds available and I would have booked a flight to those exchanges, Justin Sun to hear their point of view... that shouldn't be possible...
2 it shouldn't be possible for 1 man/corporation to have full control over a blockchain. (You don't have any need to freeze an account by doing this)
3 exchanges shouldn't meddle into blockchains.. (1 CEO's last name is also Sun?)
4 only 20 witnesses deside what to do with a blockchain? So it could be possible to turnover the top 20 like now is happened.. a false democration. That must be dealt with.