So basically youre saying that because you don't like how people would vote if their votes had any impact, their votes shouldnt have any impact.
No you apparently entirely missed the point of why a vulnerability could cause some attacker to siphon away all the wealth.
But the real argument youre making is one for centralization.
I am not making that argument; the game theory is. There are no good design options and that is the least likely to be overrun by an attacker.
Also, im not sure in what sense youre using quadratic weighting ... Voting weight is linear here
The white paper clearly says the reward is votes squared, which I also mentioned in the blog.
As opposed to a few dozen select authors doing the same in exchange for hyping the currency and its centralized control system?
Yeah, i get where you stand. ANd so does everyone reading a post like this.