You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Fact: Steemit Sybil Attacked the Steem Blockchain
Solutions to prevent this will be explored. I'm not yet convinced 1t1v (one token, one vote) is the best approach, but it may be an improvement.
Solutions to prevent this will be explored. I'm not yet convinced 1t1v (one token, one vote) is the best approach, but it may be an improvement.
As shown in my article, current voting rules cause centralization and recently allowed exchanges to set up all 20 top witnesses.
Interesting, that community witnesses talk a lot about decentralization but avoid any discussion about the power centralizing voting rule.
Another similar post didn't get much traction among the big guys either or didn't get upvotes from the big guys either.
When I brought it up years ago, crickets.
I have been involved in conversations on the EOS side of things about this also and though 1t1v may be better, what high value DPoS chains are using that approach now? Making changes can introduce risks.
I agree, this needs to be talked about more, especially now.
You are the (almost) only one from the people somewhere on the witnesses list who addressed this issue at all.
Thumbs up for this. Thanks.
From my perspective of small fry, it's a delicate political issue the majority of people (witnesses) do not want to talk about in public.
A hard cap limit on mvests witness influence per account in combination with limited number of votes or 1t1v is an improvement.