I strongly agree that 30 witness votes is horribly unfair. In an ordinary curation, a whale can outvote me by a massive margin. Voting for witnesses however, the whale can outvote me by 30x that massive margin, because we each get 30 votes based on our stake. This makes Hive purely plutocratically governed.
I strongly advocate dynamic allocation of witness votes, where we can determine how much of our stake to throw behind any witness, and support as many witnesses as we like, but the more witnesses we vote for the more thinly we spread our stake. Or, we can vote all our stake for one witness. This decreases the advantage in governance whales have to 1/30th of what it is now. Whales still massively outweigh the rest of us and Hive will remain a plutocracy, but it will be far more obvious to folks baffled by the 30 witness vote multiplication of stake weight. It will make collusion and quid pro quos much easier to spot. While distribution of stake is inequitable, dynamic allocation to witnesses makes it 30x more equitable than it currently is, and will enable folks auditing governance to spot and call out shenanigans to the community, which will help hold whales to account for their actions.
Thanks!
and unicorns like you should have 30x the vote (it's a joke in case you don't get it) 😂
It's those that don't want power that should have it, you mean?
In principle, they should be the ones who are really going to work for the community, and not eat up the community.