Qualification holds no nearing at all on a persons loyalty to the Steemit platform or the Steem Eco system. These requirement serve to restrict who can apply.
How many users have a Steem Power of 250,000 Steem Power?
How many of those accounts are owned by the same people?
How many accounts can one person use to vote with?
How will you know if an account is a second account or a genuine first?
Why is participation restricted to those not on a blacklist by Steem cleaners?
And will you hold a position of devils advocate. (so far overlooked)
Please define "manipulation"
huh? the 250k SP cap is on the voters, not the applicants, hence capping whale power.
Tho I like the "devil's advocate" position ;-)
Yup. It means it would take more than one or two votes to a selection to get that selection to the top. What I was hinting at is, that, with a 250 cap. There are organised groups out there with the ability to control the result with a cap as high as 250K.
For anyone else reading this reply
The system runs on DPOS yes I know all of this. I do not debate that ever. If you would liek to debate it, Tag me. I'm game.
oh ok, you'd like the cap lower? Low enough to be almost one user one vote ;-)
But then again, out would come an army of alts. I'm not going down this rabbit hole today.
My assumption is that splitting one's SP into multiple accounts has long been undertaken, with the intention of doing exactly what is obviously possible in this vote: to deploy substantial stake to financially manipulate DPoS mechanisms by splitting it across accounts that do not reveal mutual association.
This has long enabled self voting by obfuscating ownership of SP such that votes from accounts all owned by a single user appear to be from multiple parties. The executive of the Steemalliance will be subject to this ploy.
There appears to be no oracular method to divine ownership of SP at this time, and thus no means of countering this vector for potential fraud. Some substantial stakeholders have thousands of accounts, perhaps tens of thousands. Let me know if you come up with a means of preventing such financial manipulation, but it appears there is no mechanism potential presently of securing DPoS as effected on Steem from this fraud.
I believe there is a way to reduce the ability for manipulation while still providing a means for investment.
It would mean to change things that power does not want to change. To say one single thing is to invite failure there is a combination of factors to be considered for each step.. I am sure you are aware of that though.
I didn't mention the word failure. However, I concede that is the obvious conclusion from the extant DPoS code that enables the 250k cap to be so easily circumvented, and voting fraud to be paid for with wrinkled bags of unmarked bills exchanged in parking lots.
I have proposed the Huey Long algorithm to end the extraction of rewards by substantially staked users into their wallets, to resounding silence. Gamblers don't want to prevent the possibility of a massive payout, despite it's guarantee of profiteering, and profiteers prefer to pile up more and more tokens worth less and less, despite the actual ROI from capital gains being vastly more financially rewarding.
The Huey Long algorithm is not effective at affecting this kind of vote, as electing board members is not directly profitable, and thus requires a different mechanism to protect it. What mechanism(s) do you have in mind?
We don't honestly believe that someone will go to this extend for the privilege of volunteering on a Board where the experience of volunteering and building the Foundation is the only reward. No remuneration, either through votes or through funds of any kind, is to be gotten through this engagement.
The Steem Foundation is a registered non-profit and anyone interested in it for personal profit should look elsewhere. It's brand new and not one of those Foundations we see on the news with million dollar galas. It's existence is solely meant for the universal benefit of the Steem ecosystem and blockchain.
I can certainly agree with you that no one would pay to volunteer - unless substantial opportunities to profit through other means are potential from the position. Given the influence these positions are going to have over lots of aspects of the blockchain, I hope, there does seem to be substantial potential to influence mechanisms that could be highly remunerative.
We want it to be 'solely meant for the universal benefit of the Steem ecosystem and blockchain', but there are demonstrably folks hereabouts that have no concern for anything but their money. I do hope that the foundation is able to exclude such, but I note that is a faint hope if examples of well funded foundations handling fiat are not more ripe for corruption than Steem's foundation.
I am confident that folks with pecuniary interest will be carefully examining these positions for any potential to profit from them. Assuming no one will seek to do so isn't reasonable. I may be cynical and paranoid, but not without reason. I hope I am less cynical and paranoid than you.
...for cynical and paranoid, read 'life experienced', and not naive
If anyone tries to use a whole bunch of the accounts to vote for themselves they will be disqualified. This isn't the WG elections, this is for a real entity. You can't be blacklisted because you can't have committed fraud or be of the type of character to commit fraud. Would you want someone running a non-profit who has a history of fraud? I don't think so. The cap is so a single whale can't dominate the decision-making.
By what mechanism do you propose ascertaining a user with thousands of accounts is splitting their SP amongst those accounts to surpass the 250k limit?
They can't possibly split. If I have a whale account and I want to split that I have to power down. Each power down takes 13 weeks, with 1 week per installment. I simply won't have the chance to do this. The election is in a few weeks. At best anyone attempting will have a shot at a couple small accounts. It's honestly a waste of time for them to attempt this. It would be a better use of their time to write a nice bio and set of reasons for them to be elected.
Ok, accounts with substantial VP would need to powerdown to split that VP, so if they voted with SP they would need to powerdown before delegating or transferring that SP to another account. Please confirm my grasp of the matter.
I note that accounts with more than 3.25M Steem would get the cap each week if they powered down. This would be pretty obvious, so I suspect that double voting SP would be difficult to do cryptically. I'm pretty confident that users with thousands of accounts will be voting with multiple accounts, but that is a separate issue.
Also, there are folks that would prefer to be the power behind the throne, and may not necessarily stand for election themselves.
Thanks!
Yes. There's approximately 100 accounts with over 250k SP right now which isn't all that many. There are a few that we know of that do have a split stake, such as those who have a business/curation account, but we'll deal with that closer to voting time.
BitShares has 6 accounts that stopped entire production and development of blockchain. Voting CAP is a must!