That is not how a decentralized platform is supposed to work...
That is exactly how a descentralized system works. If people want to associate and work together or as individuals it is entirley up to each one to decide. If people want to be idiots that is their decision...if people want to delegate their voting to someone else that is their decision.
I disagree for one major reason. Yes it is their decision but if there is a huge incentive given to people for giving away their votes then there will be very few who do not give away their votes. Then by definition you have a centralized system. When power is in the hands of a few.
Centralization is a consequence of "free markets" (which is a euphemism to "let people do what they want to do").
Unfortunately when people are free to do what they want they will commit mistakes...it's human nature.
I believe that centralization of power leads to abuse of power but how do you avoid it?
I am open to suggestions.
I've been thinking on this one a lot recently. I think it comes down to this one central problem of human thinking which is primarily based on our short life span:
Once a human gets control of a large sum of money, they tend to want to either hold onto it, or make it grow larger.
This is the central issue that I see creating problems. Ned's delegations actually set an example for other whales, but when @blocktrades said he was going to sell his, I viewed it as not a great solution. I believe that blocktrades' Steem would go up in value more if he delegated his SP to builders of communities....my guess is that blocktrades may not know who these people are or may not want to do this....
In a "free" system such as the steem blockchain each participant has it's own agenda. @blocktrades runs a business and I understand why he is trying to capitalize on an opportunity to profit from it.
If we analyze it it's basically a lease on SP. The service can actually be used to grow the influence of a community. If my math is correct at the end of the delegation period you can get a ~17% ROI if you just auto-vote (10 full votes per day).
If a community pools their resources into one account and then uses the delegated SP to vote on the posts of it's members the community can grow it's influence over time (measured in SP).
The difficulty would be to setup some sort of social contract that everyone agrees on.
Power is in the hands of the few. Same can be said for reputation.
You may count me as one of the very few then I guess:
The only real downside to the vote issue are bots, and people that, (like in the real world), just do not vote on anything.
And then there are the people that whine that your vote, or their vote is only worth $0.001, I wish those people who do whine would just send me that .001 vote, I appreciate them. My vote at one time was only that, now I am at the $0.010 range. Moving up. Soon I will get to that magic number of 480 steem and get a slider so I can vote more.
No incentive is worth giving away your vote. People need to stop viewing Steemit as a carbon copy of life. Where they feel their vote is meaningless in the real world, for me on steemit their vote means a lot to me whether it is big, medium, small, or petite, they are all equally appreciated.