Clearly Sun is being encouraged to ignore the many representations of Stinc principals that the stake he acquired has come with obligations to fund development, and so far has avoided any such commitment.
Similarly, the legacy consensus has long maintained a 30x weighting of substantial stake over governance, and dismissed community concerns with a vehemence that raises questions of collusion with stakeholders that have historically controlled governance heretofore. I have raised the issue of equalizing the influence of stake on governance to extreme prejudice, and I presently see that our community is between a rock and a hard place: Sun as a solitary overlord, and a cabal of oligarchs controlling consensus by 30x weighting of the largest stakes on the chain that has traditionally kept them in power, and the vast majority of new Steem created by inflation flowing to those whales.
"User A has 1m Steem, casts 30 votes for witness, and wields 30M Steem influence over governance. User B has 100 Steem, casts 30 votes for witness, and wields 3000 Steem influence over governance. The difference between their hodlings is 999,900 Steem. The difference in the weight of their influence on governance however is 29,997,000 Steem."
This is easily resolved by applying nothing more innovative than VP that affects all other voting to witness votes, and depleting witness votes 100%. This enables 1 Steem = 1 witness vote, and User A's 999,900 larger stake will produce 999,900 weight on governance, which reasonably enables DPoS to work.
Absent rectification of this weighting Sun's estimated ~100M Steem hodlings can theoretically bear 3B Steem weight on Steem governance, and not even @freedom and @pumpkin are competent to oppose it because of the 30x weighting Sun's larger stake avails.
Either we stop enabling centralization of Steem governance, or Steem will be centralized. It appears we are presently not being offered any choice of decentralizaton between the blue pills on offer from either side.
Thanks!
I must say, I like this idea of yours.
It's how DPoS naturally is maximally decentralized and each Steem of every user wields equal weight on governance. It's how I think we all expect DPoS works. I haven't understood any good reason for it to be otherwise. I have understood bad reasons for it.
I have been discussing this for weeks, and only @smooth has presented what is a plausible reason for this election mechanism, but what I understood of the risk he discussed it reducing was far less harmful (a 1/3 +1 attack that prevents consensus) than the actual damage this election mechanism has long done to decentralization and now threatens to completely centralize Steem under one user.