Thank you for writing this @dragosroua and providing us with food for thought!
You ask for thoughts ...
I would "vote" for the Fourth Scenario, although two immediate problems arise:
- A relatively few very large stakeholders appear to have "the final vote" on the top 20, as theirs far outweighs many of the rest of us combined ...
- It is not normal human nature to freely "vote" to reduce your income, i.e. why would the top 20 ever agree to this?
Still, I am "in here" due to the potential of a decentralized business structure. So, until I learn something which overrides this preference, that is where I will stand.
Whatever happens, it seems we are now at a point of time in truly testing whether this concept can survive.
Thanks for all you do, as one of our Witnesses!
Posted using Partiko Android
Because it's either lower or zero.
Yes, @dragosroua, understood from your post. But, perhaps we can expand on that.
"Lower or zero" is clear enough. It is getting a voting majority to acknowledge that is how bad it is first. Even then, if that day arrives, agreeing the solution is to voluntarily give up their income, as the consensus decision on the right solution. And, then, how voting for Witnesses follows afterwards ...
One thing is clear, at least to me (I greatly prefer candor, so I am open to any and all differences of opinion, as I might learn something ...), if it survives long-term, the Steem blockchain has a way to go to be decentralized to the point where a single "point of failure" cannot bring "the whole house down" ...
Right now, that "single point of failure" is Steemit, Inc. without which there would be no Steem blockchain to begin with, if I understand the history correctly. I hope the right decisions are taken, in the face of adversity, for the "Steemisphere" to survive. There should be no "too big to fail" portion of it ...
Thanks again dragosroua for taking the time to put this post together.