You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why is Dan Larimer Vilianized Rather Than Celebrated?
I think I messed up the syntax of that sentence... I meant "you don't need to tell me that, I know it"
My concern is not the slowing down but a full stop of the progress. If you need the majority's vote to fix/introduce something in the system, and the majority are profit-chasers - you will fail.
I am also worried about centralized exchanges - they don't realize it yet, but they have a lot of voting power.
Again, I do not dismiss your idea - just trying to understand the cons and maybe come up with better solution :)
I see, cool cool. If vote decay is implemented well it should take care of dead accounts, but it's unclear if it will help centralization.
There were 2 approaches discussed in Telegram on this.
I prefer the 2nd option, but anyone that designates a proxy would need to have exception rules since they they don't vote themselves.
Upon more thinking about the centralization concerns with proxies, I believe vote decay will only work for people who don't use the platform very much. Those who wish to maintain their support for a specific proxy just need to do what is decided to reset their vote decay
I think a more sophisticated approach to reduce voter apathy is necessary. We need an incentive system to reward voter participation. It needn't be expensive or complicated, a simple gamification of voting with a dopamine reward (like facebook employs with their "likes") may be all it takes to encourage behaviors like voting to sustain the platform.