You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: RE: @Justinsunsteemit witness voting policy
If such a letter would have been written addressed to an adult that can think responsibly, I'm sure this would be very effective.
However, you are addressing Justin Sun. I would not expect too much.
Things go both ways @fitzgibbon :), I think there is so much miscommunication/misunderstanding going on, it is understandable things are getting heated quite fast. The problem is that when we respond out of emotion, we tend to forget the goal of mutual benefits.
Personally, and I don't want to sound harsh, I'm sick and tired of the 'miscommunication' spin on things.
SF 22.1 was not an emotional decision. It had supermajority support from the elected witnesses. And as such, it was the law. That's DPOS.
Justin's reaction, creating 20 sock puppets and using all his available stake + exchanges to rewrite the law on this platform, unfortunately was also DPOS.
Now we will see if such a system has any chance for survival. It certainly is vulnerable when stake is not distributed evenly. The problem is very clear if power is centralised in one organisation/person. But I've felt too there's a group of OG Steem miners still holding on to a large stake, which is not particularly health for the platform either (i.e. the famous 'circlejerk').
I would hope that the longer the platform survives, the stronger and more decentralized it gets.