You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Blockchain Governance Models | Should Steem Governance Model Be Changed?

in LeoFinancelast year

I believe if we dropped the votes to 5 from 30 it would make a big difference in terms of security and decentralization. The more I think about it the more I like that number. The sooner we make that happen the better.

Sort:  

I still think one stake one vote is the right thing. But everyone can scale their vote. Meaning if I have 10M, I can vote 5 times by 1M, and 10 times by 500k ... so basically one can vote even a 100 times, but scaled until they dont drain their witness voting power.

Yes that would work as well. It would prevent the top 20 witnesses basically being selected by only a handful of accounts like we have now. I also would be on board with expanding the Top Witnesses classification from 20 to something larger, like 30 or 50.

There are some scenarios where only having 5 votes can lead to a minority stake taking control of consensus. Imagine a situation where everyone votes on the 5 more popular block producers...in that case a minority stakeholder can vote on 15 other witnesses and effectively own 2/3 plus one of the top positions.

It is not very likely but possible none the less.

What is more likely is that a minority stake can block a necessary HF by controling 1/3 of the top witness positions...we need a mathematician that is good with game theory to go over the possible solutions.

There isn't going to be a solution that covers all possible scenarios, only better ones than we have right now, and this likely is one.