RE: My Personal Thoughts - Steem/Tron Saga
You made a very nice video, but DPoS is hardly perfect. Its an experiment and valued-customer is simply suggesting tweaks, not the complete removal.
Frankly, I believe we should change the stake weight to a stake amount * stake duration system. Its still a DPoS (or Techno-republic as I think of it), you still have witnesses and the general idea, but it guarantees the most loyal to the blockchain have the most influence.
It would also protect against opportunistic whales performing a hostile take over. Your stake may be nothing like Justin's, but in this system you can win by being more devoted long-term. If you and others decided it would be worth it to you to stake for a much longer duration than Justin would be comfortable with, it could be easier for you to maintain the status quo.
Justin showed us that the current system is more of "Proof of Bought Tokens" than proof of stake. If influence was based on both amount of tokens staked as well as length of the stake, then you can say its a true skin-in-the-game system.
I agree it’s very flawed, even said so in the video.. in fact dpos is so flawed I’m not sure it can achieve what we have attempted for it to do, add in an inflation pool that encourages individuals to devalue the ecosystem for a quick buck and we have the shit show we have today.
I’m aware the gentleman wants to tweak it, and I fully encourage that and have seen many talks about it. What I said, originally, is I felt like much of his ideas actually questioned the base layer of the chain. Now reading his over 20 comments on my post.. I see he simply wants to reduce the number of witness votes an account can cast, which I agree with to a point. From the first comment, that wasn’t clear.. and having seen his interactions previously.. didn’t feel like debating the base layer of the chain today. So I believe I simply agreed to disagree.. which he then needed to insult me, and spam many of my comments with nonsense.. and now has taken over my post of how apparently I’m working with the evil stakeholders or some shit .. so quite frankly.. 🤷♀️ I don’t have much more to say.
Fair enough, if you are being harrassed no need to respond to him. I have not been following all the comments, just that one from him was quite lengthy and caught my eye.
No. I reckon you should be able to vote 1, or 500 witnesses, but your votes are based on VP, just as ordinary voting, and for witness votes that VP depletes 100%, and doesn't recharge.
This means that each Steem you vote with can only vote once. Not 30x. This means that if you have 1M Steem and Bob has 100 Steem, the difference between your stakes is 999,900 and the difference between your influence on governance is 999,900.
Each stakeholder then wields as much influence on governance as they have stake. That's what I propose, and that's what I think most people think stake weighting works like now, but does not.
That's a very interesting idea. I had only thought of simply using our current VP mechanism to deplete witness votes 100%, and not recharge them until and unless they were withdrawn, and then to recharge them 100%, which makes the code easy and pretested (for four years now), but adding a powered up time variable does have merit, if adding to coding and testing complexity.
Thanks!