Great read, Ringo, and thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my article as well. Resteemed!

So, I always have to be careful how I say this because I believe if I say it wrong, it gets shifted into a discussion about "consolidation of power" and such, which is not where my mind is at. Let me take a stab at this.

People who have a large stake in Gridcoin (think, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of investment in USD) want to have a commensurate level of influence over the decisions that are being made with the coin. I don't think that's because they're just power-hungry and they want to just squash innovative ideas. I think it's just because they have a large investment in the coin and they don't want to feel like decisions are being made by people who have a less meaningful stake and are thus more-likely to want to take unnecessary gambles or not put as much thought into the long-term implications of the decisions they're supporting.

The way I see it, when we make decisions in Gridcoin, we are effectively putting everybody's money on the line ($15 million in market cap worth). We just have to be careful that people who have invested heavily in the coin don't start to feel like they're being stripped of influence and thus have what they feel is an unacceptably low level of control over their investment.

I understand there are arguments to be made about decentralization and the "purpose" of decentralized currency, but for better or for worse this space is receiving an enormous influx of investment from people who are here not necessarily for the ideology but for the investment opportunity. And that's not a bad thing --- we need them here if we are to grow and do great things to help advance science which is, after all, the core goal of Gridcoin.