You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Stake-weighted voting is a neo-fascist abomination: anti-liberty, anti-equality, anti-humanity
There's been a lot (I mean a LOT) of discussions about a 50:50 split and a mild superlinear curve (something around n^1.2). I'm against both ideas because anything superlinear favors the whales. As for the 50:50 split, while the argument is to encourage voting and curation, it would benefit the bidbots and (again) the whales. It was argued that with more curation, the authors would get more rewards anyways, despite being a 50:50 split, but to me it feels like an additional 25% tax on the author's work (relative to the 75:25 split). I believe the authors deserve the most credit for their work, therefore I'm in favor of keeping the 75:25 split and a linear curve to benefit the minnows.
P.S. The witness requirement for a hardfork is 17/20.
To be clear, my criticism is that witnesses are wasting their time discussing (A LOT, as you say, which makes it even more wasteful) trifling changes, whilst completely ignoring the real root of all problems mentioned above. Witnesses have been doing this for the last two and a half years, and 20 hardforks later, everyone pretends to have not learned very much. Doesn't matter whether it is 50:50 or 2 minute reverse auction or whatever. It's all hopeless without a radical reinvention of how Rshares are allocated. All effort should be allocated towards such research. If there's no better solution, they should be allocated to SMTs, account-based voting and Oracles, as currently that's the best chance we have. (Even though it's not good enough.)