You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Democratizing Steem!
No it doesn't. Don't you see that splitting one initial pie into 3 pies of 10 pieces each make each one of those slices exactly as big as slicing the initial pie into 30 pie-ces?
I really don't get your point.
Right now everyone has 30 witness votes. Where each witness vote is worth the full vests the account has. Let's denominate this as "x" vests.
If the account only voted 1 witness, this witness would also only get one vote worth x-mv, thus, he should vote 30 times since this way he is able to distribute 30 x-mv in votes.
If we restrict his power to 10 votes, he will be able to vote 10 x-mv in votes.
And if he splits this up, it's not worth it.
The total quantity the account is able to vote is 10 x-mv, or 20 x x/2-mv or 40 x x/4-mv, but the more the account splits it, the more difficult it will be to make the vote decide who is in the top 20.
Why not? He still controls as much stake in proportion to everyone else as before. Xmv is the whole point, that doesn't magically shrink in influence because they can only vote 10x with it. The orcas that you want to be able to compete with those votes will also only have 10 votes, and they won't be worth any more than before or his any less. It doesn't change anything because he can give out as much of the pie by splitting it up and stacking slices, so that 10 slices will equal to a whole pie, or 30, as before. Being able to natively distribute xmv 30 times or 10 times won't change his influence at all, he can simply split it up and it will still not be any less than the hypothesized orcas and dolphins stakes, because obviously the proportion of his stake to everyone else has not changed.
It is really easy.
Right now, his 30 votes, can basically vote all the top 30 witnesses => Very strong influence!!!
If he only has 10 votes, he can only vote the top 10 witnesses => 50% of the top 20, much better.
If he splits it into 2x10 votes, each of these votes is worth only half. (Yes it is still worth a lot, but only worth half than what it'd be if he hadn't split it)
So, if the orcas and dolphins don't split their stack, each of their vote is worth more now after the change (because they didn't split their stack).
His overall influence compared to others is the same, but his influence on the top 20 is now smaller, either because he can only define the top 10, or because his vote will only be x/2 compared to the people who don't split their stack.
His overall influence compared to others is the same, but his influence on the top 20 is now smaller, either because he can only define the top 10, or because his vote will only be x/2 compared to the people who don't split their stack.
There is no but, it is really simple but it obviously still evades your grasp:
Xmv = x% of all v= x% influence over the top 30 witnesses.
He splits it in 3, and he will have exactly the same amount of vests to vote in proportion to everyone else exactly like before, because his stake did not grow or shrink in proportion to everyone else, so yes he will split it and yes it will still have the extact same % of mv over the top 30 as before.
Okay, let's take an example, an easy one.
Let' s suppose user A has 120mv, and user B has 61mv.
Let's say, there are only user A and user B in the network.
In the situation of 30 witness votes: User A will define ALL 30 top witnesses. And user B has no say at all. User B can only change the order of the top 30, but can't vote his own candidate into the top 30.
In the situation of 10 witness votes:
Two Situations:
User A will either define ALL top 10 witnesses (if he doesn't split his stake) and User B votes the remaining 10.
User A splits his stake to vote ALL top 20 witnesses. But now, user B doesn't split his stake and now has enough stake to vote his 10 people in the top 10.
(61 > 60)
At best user B could vote 10-20, but then user A would still control 1-10 and 21-30, and the point is still that the stake controls the witnesses, not the number of votes, and undoubtedly it will encourage stake splitting and since the witnesses aren't controlled by any one party there's no reason to encourage stake splitting to circumvent the limit, we might as well set it on one witness vote, why stop at 10, it will have the same effect: people will split their stake up to consolidate their power into more meaningful ways.
https://steemit.com/steem/@ura-soul/visualising-the-votes-for-the-top-50-witnesses-with-and-without-the-freedom-pumpkin-votes
Of course, people will always try to maximize the system. But the entire point of this system is to make sure, that the top stake holders don't have as much influence on the top 20 witnesses.
Especially since witnesses 1-20 have the power to make all the decisions in relation to hard forks etc.
With >= 20 votes, pumpkin has an enormous influence in this. If we reduce this to <= 10, this helps a lot.
I'm not talking about saving the world, but I'm talking about decentralizing the election. And reducing the number of votes, certainly does that.
And I agree, this can be further reduced, to 5,3,1. But I think 10 is a good number. 10 allows people to select a number of witnesses which represent them well and they think represent Steem well while not giving anyone enough power to have such a huge influence in selecting ALL top 20 witnesses basically alone.
That isn't at all what the entire point of the system is.
It does not help a lot, it probably doesn't help anything at all, why would it anyway, you're asking for large stakeholders to split up their stake after all, like I said, why not limit it to one witness vote, it accomplishes exactly the same thing.
Like that post I linked, it's hardly the case. I don't think we should encourage people to split their stake up, I think that this suggestion fixes absolutely nothing and I wish you good luck to get the large stakeholders to undermine their power because of notions that "they have absolute power" or anything to that effect, especially when it's neither the case nor was it ever intended for this to be one witness one vote (which is where you want this to end up), it was intended actually to give people with more stake exponentially more power, after all, if you don't trust the large stakeholders to safeguard their investment it makes no sense to trust a bunch of small stakeholders to do the same.