We need a more democratic process, better communication and more transparency of the witnesses and I think a good way to reach this is by simply reducing the number of witnesses each person can vote on.
But how can you achieve it, at all, when all you've accomplished by limiting the votes is to encourage people to split their stake up and maintain the same number of votes? Even if you could, why would it need to be more democratic, it was never about 1 person one vote, votes were never meant to be equal, and if you don't trust the largest stakeholders with their own money, if you think that the ones with pennies to lose {compared to the hundreds of thousands) should have more say for no other reason than those opinions you hold of the largest stakeholders then I wish you good luck getting those that have the stake to bend over.
No, splitting the stake up won't help at all, then you get twice the quantity of votes with half of the quantity of impact. This way you reduce your influence and not grow it.
No, splitting the stake up won't help at all, then you get twice the quantity of votes with half of the quantity of impact.
That's the point. The same ammount of stake still has the exact same amount of say. 2x as many votes worth half as much as having them in the same place is equal to having half the votes but worth 2 times the weight.
Yes, which in the end turns out 1==1.
If for example Pumpkin would do that, it would help the entire chain since it would be much easier to pass his votes with the votes of enough orcas and dolphins.
Why, their stake did not increase and pumpkin's stake did not decrease.
If he distributes it into two piles to be able to cast 20 votes, yes, then it did.
No it doesn't. 60mv + 60mv = 120 mv. How are you not getting something this basic?