FWIW, I think his main argument is that 10 votes per day drives big voters to auto-vote, which I think has some truth to it. That in turn leads to centralization of voting (how well it then gets distributed is another question, of course).
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Yes, I agree that voting a large stake responsibly is not easy work, and asking that stake to sit idle is alot to ask, too.
When Dan first balanced the math it doesn't appear that he accounted for the ninjamine having such an outsized influence on the pool in so few hands, nor how that would filter out from those centralized points.
At this point, I am at a loss how to move forward, increasing incentives to newbs is unlikely to overcome our reputation in the market.
That being said, the whale experiment got us stirred up pretty quick.
Any chance of a return to a community enforced cap on what any one person can take out, thereby increasing the influence of everyone else?
I haven't look since the fork, but a 500mv cutoff impacted ~70 accounts.
Beyond that, remediation of our image seems, to me, to be our key imperative.
Well, beyond the efficiency upgrades and smteees!™.
My own ideas for a social media platform (if that's really even the correct phrase to describe what I want to build) is radically different from the reward system of the base layer of Hive. They are so different in fact, that the only interplay between that 2nd layer system and Hive will be the need for RC to publish transactions (to pay for the costs of maintaining the network).
Isn't that what smteees!™ will give us?
I'm looking forward to hearing you flesh that out a little.
SMTs are one proposed solution. It's quite different from my own ideas, but that doesn't mean they might not also solve some problems here, and I know many people are interested in some solution of that type. I plan to put some thought into both topics after we get thru HF24.