I think part of the problem is what always happens under capitalism, crony capitalism. Even with more people voting, they are likely to vote on the same things the big dogs are voting on because they are trying to gain favor with them to attract support for their posts.
That said, more participation is always a good thing. I just don't think it solves this problem. So long as this system uses HP as a determinant for how many "votes" a person gets on any issue, we will not have the fairness intended with the "one person one vote" idea those of us living in democracies have been indoctrinated with. This is not a democracy so much as a capitalist system, because how much capital you have determines how much influence you have.
I haven't thought about it that way but you are 100% right. I can imagine there are many people with such a mentality here. One person one vote sounds like a good starting point. This is definitely something to consider.
Stake-based voting is an absolutely must unless you want KYC. There is no question about it. Without KYC implemented at chain level, there is little to stop those with the money from creating hundreds of thousands or millions of accounts to vote under one-vote-per-one-account.
And more participation at this stage is exactly what solves the problem. Coordinating everyone's witness votes was exactly what was crucial in wresting control back from Justin Sun on Steem. If the rest of the community just passively waits for the whales to get things done what we get is more consolidation. At this time, the mathematical reality is that middle-tier users collectively are capable of introducing enough competition over access to a top 20 witness position to keep things from going completely stale.
We have listened to years of screaming how Steemit, Inc was holding us back. I'm still withholding judgement as to how this thing will work but I'm taking the possibility into account that things won't work any better than when Steemit, Inc was responsible for core development. No amount of screaming obscenities or flagging will do any good if critical stuff does not get shipped by the DAO. Interesting times.
At least their HP will be split among hundreds of accounts and no single whale will be able to vote for multiple proposals with full power.
After seeing what Stinc did for three years - nothing of significance other than mira and communities - it will be very hard to underperform based on how low the bar has been set.
Why would that be? It makes no difference whatsoever from how many accounts the voting power comes from. Voting with multiple accounts is easily automated using bots.
Besides, no hard fork will take place without the consent of the largest stakeholders here, so it would be a moot point anyway.
You think 22 hard forks is nothing of significance? Ned was a bad business manager. Financially, Steemit Inc was managed poorly. They didn't cash out during good times, which put them in a terrible position in late 2018. Eli Powell seemed to be competent at cost cutting and keeping the company afloat. I think the jury is still out there when it comes how well the DAO is capable of funding development.
Because one account one vote
I'm sorry but I'm not following you. Could you clarify what you mean?
if a whale has 100mil hp, how is he going to vote with the entire 100 mil for multiple proposals under one account one vote?
if he was to equally vote for two proposals each would be voted for 50mil not 100
I see what you mean. There is no voting power for proposals or witnesses that can decay or be depleted.
Would the largest stakeholders who control the witness spots agree to a hard fork to implement one account one vote.