You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Do You Want A Witness You Believe In?
The one change I could see that could potentially make all the difference is relevant to the top 20 consensus. If we had a system in place where the top 20 all had to be in agreements for a proposal to move forward then having one of these such individuals you have listed in the top 20 we could potentially reject any proposals that do not fit the betterment of our platform.
Rather then a majority it should be unanimous then the control will come down to who is holding witness votes for what reason and someone like @jackmiller or @raggaemuffin in top20 could single handedly reject a proposal based on whether it’s sufficiently tested. Not worrying about being disabled as the only witness refusing to update.
Posted using Partiko iOS
That is an excellent suggestion. I don't know what chance it gets of being approved, but I like the way it would force some accountability to us!
I would say very unlikely but we can still push the idea, maybe someone could put it forward to Steemit Inc with some fine tuning.
I just think the witnesses should not fear lost income for disagreeing, lost votes is a whole other subject but if they make it into top20 while asking those hard questions I doubt this would be a problem.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Agreed... when they have to worry about losing money, then their voices get silenced. Coming up with a solution for that would definitely be a plus!