Let's change 1SP 30 votes (current) to 1SP 1vote

in SCT.암호화폐.Crypto4 years ago (edited)

Preparing for the Four-Party Dialogue as a representative from the Korean community(scheduled on 3/11(Wed) 11pm KST), I am focusing on specific issues that we may discuss, instead of vague things like "we love STEEM".


I have read roadmaps from the participants(Steem foundation, Tron foundation, and Steem witnesses) but I have to admit that these ones are "good" in nature but definitely lack details. In other words, if these are all the opinions from participants I do not think we can reach any kind of agreement.

Compromises are needed to reach an agreement, and to get there we first need to check what are the "absolute NO" for each party. After eliminating them, then we may negotiate on other issues.

Analysis of the current situation

Justin says that he wants to be sure that his accounts(and funds) will not be locked up, like in 22.2.

From my point of view, leaving possibility of getting frozen again is absolute NO for Justin. It is scary even if it is a mere possibility, and he has actually seen that it might actually happen if super-majority of top 20 witnesses decides to do so.

And we know that under the current DPoS system, basically everything is possible if super-majority of top 20 witnesses agree. So giving up witness voting rights as some 22.2 community asks for would be absolute NO for him.

On the other hand, 22.2 witnesses worry that as we have seen in 22.5, Justin may take super-majority of top 20 and do whatever hard fork if Steem INC accounts' witness voting rights are not restricted.

  • In fact, the 22.2 witnesses made an urgent request to the Korean community (@proxy.token) that proxy.token would vote for 22.2 witnesses so that Justin may not hard fork, and proxy.token changed the votes so that 7 of top 20 witnesses are 22.2 witnesses.

Proposal: 1SP 1 vote

Achieved Goal: neither Justin/22.2 witnesses cannot do hard fork by having at least 5 among top 20 witnesses.

Proof(rough version):

Justin controls about 25% of total SP available. If he uses this voting right for 5 candidates, each get about 5%.

There can be at most 15 witnesses who may have more than 5%. Suppose there are 16 candidates with >5% witness votes. It means that the total witness votes > 16 * 5% + 5 * 5%(Justin's) = 105%, but the total witness votes should be at most 100%. Contradiction.

The other way is much easier. It is pretty clear that Justin cannot have 16 top witnesses with 25% share.

  • The beauty of this method is that it does not require any "trust" or "promise".

It makes sense

Almost all democracy adopts 1 person 1 vote, which is equivalent 1 steem 1 vote here.

And do you really think 1 steem 30 votes makes sense, when we vote for only 20 main witnesses? At least to me, it sounds like voting for 2 candidates for the presidential election.

Furthermore, it will alleviate the problem - de facto centrailziation - we already had. We all know that unless you get the vote from big whales like freedom (proxied to @pumpkin), it is very difficult to get into top 20.

  • In fact, @aggroed previously touted once that he was the only top 20 who didn't get vote from freedom(pumpkin) and blocktrades.

I believe that reducing the number of votes will help to achieve decentralization (if this is what you value).

Implementation details

I am not a programmer so I do not know how difficult it would be to implement 1 SP 1 vote, but I guess that it won't be too difficult.

And the above argument may be modified in other ways. For example:

  1. 1SP 1 vote, but you may vote for multiple candidates with lower power: say you have 100 SP and vote for aggroed and yabapmatt (Go Splinterlands!), then each get 50 SP worth of votes.

  2. 1SP 3~5 vote: as long as we keep the total votes low, we still solve the above problem.

Next topic: Powerdown

My next posting will be about Powerdown. More specifically,

  1. Period: 13 weeks(current), 4 weeks, or 1 week?

  2. Exchanges: should exchanges be allowed to powerdown faster?

That's it for today. I am looking forward to reading your feedback and thoughts.


Good Idea, another additional option would be that one can downvote Witnesses.

Thank you for the comment.

I was thinking about the downvote option also, but just wanted to move step by step.

I think you should be able to vote for as many witnesses (or as few) as you want, and the % will be divided among them. Ex: vote 2 witnesses @ 50% SP, or vote 100 witnesses @ 1% SP. I agree something ought to change from the current 30 votes but I leave it to programmers to crunch the math and explain what creates the most secure system.

That definitely works too. As long as 1sp 1vote(in total), we achieve the same goal.

Yes, the multiplication effect we have now seems strange and unbalanced. Maybe someone could enlighten me why it is that way to begin with?

I'd also like to see an additional benefit for anyone who has staked for 13 weeks or more, perhaps your witness vote is at its full potential once you stake for a longer period of time. That would also reduce the chances of quick stake to change consensus

THAT, right there. The whole idea that your witness vote only becomes fully "vested" after you have committed to hold stake a for a while, makes a lot of sense in the context witnesses being tasked with the long term stewardship of the blockchain....

Honestly, my favorite idea is that Steem Power and witness voting was a simple equation of stake amount * stake length. Why would this be good?

Let's say someone from Venezuela can only afford to purchase 500 STEEM to power up, while the average person on Steem can afford 5000. The poorer person could have an equal amount of upvote/downvote potency and witness vote potency simply by being willing to lock up their stake for 10x as much time as the average user.

In this system its not just about how much STEEM you lock up, the longer you lock up your STEEM the more influence you have over the blockchain. This could be very good for the price of STEEM because a lot of STEEM would get locked up for very long periods of time, but it would also be a much more fair system.

For example, let's say a person had 50 STEEM and was willing to lock it up for 10 years. They would be equally influential in the network as someone with 5000 STEEM locked up for 36 days and 12 hours.

At first thought, this sounded very good. But then, think about the current scenario. If TRON locks up their stake for 1 week longer, this will require the rest of the community to lock up for 1 week longer. It's trivial for TRON to do it but probably extremely difficult for the community.

In fact, TRON can lock up for 1 year and this will give them huge governance advantage. The rest of the community likely wouldn't be able to match that and will lose control over the chain. For TRON, locking up for 1 year wouldn't be such a big deal because they can't sell their huge stake in a short time period anyways. So powering it down over a long time seems like quite a desirable trade-off for more governance power.

Same for any larger stakeholder. The large stakeholder would probably enjoy more influence over the reward pool and governance and SPS proposals in exchange for powering down for multiple years. If they have a good-size stake, they can power down over multiple years and get some good amount of STEEM every week. Whereas the small stakeholder, if powered up for a longer period of time, would get a negligible amount of STEEM each week, so why would they choose to power up for a longer period of time?

Overall, I am thinking such a change will put small stakeholders at a disadvantage.

I prefer 1SP = 1 vote, multiple candidates. I don't think 3-5 votes is enough redundancy for passive users. Investors may want to vote for witnesses but they don't want to check their votes every day. At the same time members of a community may want to use all their votes to elect their own witness.

I think disabled witnesses should be automatically excluded from the calculation and votes should be divided evenly among your voted active witnesses.

I’ve always been pro 4 week power down. I made a proposal about it. I don’t think the exchanges deserve a bailout but I do want a 4 week vesting period for our community. @thecallmedan spoke to me about 1 SP 1 Vote and I think that is fine also.

Thank you for sharing your opinion! It weights more to me as you are one of the witnesses.

1:1 voting is a great idea that I've been supporting as well. In your example, voting 2 witnesses would give them both 50%, but just like with upvoting content, it would be pretty easy to upvote one witness more than another.

Powerdowns are another issue entirely. There's some talk of being charged a "burn fee" to powerdown early, so you'd get the money back faster but less of it.

Personally I think we should have voting every month to determine if the powerdown time goes up or down. I also like the burn feature.

1:1 is pointless now. Who can afford to buy enough stake to take over the chain again, after all this is said and done? Think about it. WHY would someone spend millions upon millions to take over? Think about it. There was only ONE opportunity to hijack this chain cheaply. That's done. Anything else now is paranoia. Take a step back and look at the entire picture. Ask yourselves how someone could pull of this same nonsense. Ask yourselves what they would achieve by doing what we see here today, again. Think.

There are already people here with tens of thousands of sock puppet accounts. That 1:1 in my mind seems so easy to manipulate, compared to the system now. These requested changes are spawned by fear and nothing else.

1:1 All somebody has to do is LOOK at how many votes the top slots have, create that many accounts, fill them with a bot, take over the the chain. Simple and far cheaper. BAD IDEA. Or maybe I'm just on crack and didn't read this properly.

1:1 isn't pointless, it was always the logical answer for how voting should work. The ability to Sybil attack this network was built into it from the start... almost purposeful it seems. Maybe it was a good thing to bait one now instead of later.

1:1 makes a lot more sense for more reasons than just network security. It also makes it easier to elect single witnesses to the top 20 in a much faster timeframe. There are so many reasons to do it, probably the biggest one is just that it makes the most logical sense to everyone who is trying to figure out the platform. 1:30 makes it looks like we attacked ourselves on purpose like idiots. Again, maybe this was all part of the master plan to bait something insane like exchanges attacking us. Obviously this is far fetched, but whatever.

I meant to place that comment under the main post.

Unless I'm missing something, it took me all of about 2 minutes of thought and I already found a way to exploit that system for far cheaper than what it would cost to do it today.

Everyone thinks they know how to fix STEEM. But is it really broken? Always moving the goal posts. I've seen this a million times over the years. Everyone is getting pulled in every direction, panicking, armchair politicians, experts and lawyers. Instead of getting good at the game, people always want to change the rules. Look how many people weren't even voting for witnesses until recently. Was the system broken or were the people broken?


Unless I'm missing something, it took me all of about 2 minutes of thought and I already found a way to exploit that system for far cheaper than what it would cost to do it today.

Did you now?
Share with the class.

I don't see how that's possible.
Giving 30 votes in a 20 witness system is absurd.

The COST of taking over the chain is what people need to think about. If I was only allowed to have 10 votes, I could make two accounts and have 20 votes.

If I was allowed one vote, I could make twenty accounts and have 20 votes.

um... what?

1:1 doesn't mean one vote.
It means one coin can only be allocated to one witness.

Just to clarify: it's 1 steem power 1 vote, not 1 steem account 1 vote. As you mentioned already, the latter is vulnerable for exploits.

If this is a dumb question, just shoot me. What happens if I have 2 SP?

U can have 2 sp for one witness or 1 so for two witnesses. My understanding

What happens if I have 300000000 SP?

Lol than no one else would be interested because no one else owns anything on platform

You own all the steems. Congratulations

I would be pro 4 week PD. Exchanges should not be allowed to PD quicker as then they can vote with users funds more easily.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. I think I would support that proposal as well.

I've seen this idea floating around, since it would have to be voted in by those with power and could potentially limit their power I find it unlikely this will ever get implemented.

It's not harsh words for our current witnesses though, it's just how the world works, people will rarely vote to limit their own power.

Thank you for pointing it out. Yes, I suspect the same (untold) reason - will see how it develops.

This opinion must be adopted.

I hope we can adopt this.

Thank you for addressing one of the most important points of all which led to this chaotic event.

1sp 1 witness vote indeed!!

Unless I am missing somthing, I think 1sp 1vote is natural way to go.

I agree. Justin should do as he pleases with his stake and all parties should be limited in their ability to control the witnesses. either 1 SP = 1 vote or each account may vote for no more than 5-10 witnesses. It makes a truly trustless system, which may mean that it becomes impossible to reach consensus but we'll find out in due course

I agree that we should build trustless system that we do not need to rely on "promises".

Exactly that

This way of communication is great, we need business logic and positive energy that will make a synergy of success. In any case, if you asked me I would make democratic decentralization - one beneficiary - the same value of the vote and then we would have witnesses from all over the world. And witnesses can make money just like any other miner, who is more entitled to more money, etc.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

You are welcome

곰돌이가 @glory7님의 소중한 댓글에 시세변동을 감안하여 $0.013을 보팅해서 $0.029을 지켜드리고 가요. 곰돌이가 지금까지 총 7589번 $101.056을 보팅해서 $102.591을 구했습니다. @gomdory 곰도뤼~

1 SP 1 vote is a goal worth discussion. But there should be a lot of discussions before it is changed. Also let's consider it for SPS, too. In any case, if it is changed to this and Tron can still vote, they can over-rule any hard fork forever using a stake that was supposed to be non-governance according to a lot of people. Remove their say in the matter and there is no way that will get close to 50% support.

Power down change SPS result was about 49-51 to change it from 13 to 4 weeks. This suggests that people want it reduced, but even reducing it to 4 weeks is too much, nevermind reducing it to 1 week. Perhaps it could be left alone or reduced to somewhere around 5-12 weeks? The exchanges definitely should not get a 'specialized' quicker power down, but there should be options available for all to permit this.

I'm happy to see a discussion about downvote seemingly off the table for now. I personally think we should wait until after SMT is implemented to look into changing the inflation distribution model again.

There is a lot of disagreement with the idea of including 1 of those parties as the Korean group. For example, the USA group or the EU group or even the latin/spanish group may represent more SP more individuals and more content on Steem. It is an unnatural division and seems to be only happening because the Koreans have unionized under SCT. Any rights gained will likely be immediately taken away.

Just my thoughts. Good luck to all with the 4 party meeting.

Thank you for your opinion.

As far as know, the Korean community takes 1 seat only because they are hosting the event. If, say Spanish group had hosted the event I am pretty sure that they would get one seat. So please go ahead and host your discussion session if you desire.

"Any rights gained will likely be immediately taken away":

I am not sure what you meant by "rights", as I do not think there is any right that was additionally given. Let me know if it were not the case.

"Immediately taken away"... so you or the group you imply to represent have power and/or intention to take something away from the Korean community. I see.

Thank you for pointing this out clearly. It reminds me of the suspiction that once this drama resolves then the Korean community and users who did not support 22.2 may get attacked again like before.

Your meeting, your decision and they agreed. It's always better than no discussion. I look forward to the outcome. I just don't see how any trust can be built. But I'm usually skeptical and pessimistic around here.


  • Korea is the country with the third user.

Wow, I had no idea Korea was number 3. Koreans really like using the Internet so I guess it isn't that surprising. That's really neat data, thank's for sharing.

A few thoughts:

  1. Why only Steemit? Justin represents Steemit. Having a collection of popular Steem access points to add would be better (#steempeak, #partiko, #esteem, etc).
  2. Why does this qualify 3rd place Korea above US or India? Could you agree to a representative from India and US? Why only top 3 only?
  3. Why do we go based on individual IP addresses (actually I think this is ok)? What about stake or active accounts.
  4. How does IP hiding/routing affect this data?
  5. Most importantly Why do we go with countries? There are regions and cultural divisions, too. Further Steem is a blockchain that is global in reach and transcends nations. Let's look beyond nationalism. Korean is just language and content parameter on Steem.

I hope you or your community will hold a meeting for their agreement.
The Korean community is getting tired, too.

I hope you or your community will hold a meeting for their agreement.
The Korean community is getting tired, too.

There have been several meetings held. I believe this complicates it.

If you believe so, take care of it your way. I don't mean to disturb your efforts.

Thanks @glory7, please everybody proceed in a constructive way!

I am all for your witness voting policy. Powerdown as mentioed already should stay above 4 weeks.
No special rules for exchanges, that would be unfair!

I am also ok with the representative fom the corean community, as it is a strong player that went a bit unheard for quite some time.

AND. Somebody has to trust somebody someday, otherwise this stalemate won't end, for the fear of the one or the other HF. So I guess some pride should be swallowed, and this will be done by the more reasonable party.

Thank you very much. I would like to see some kind of agreement/compromise soon.

곰돌이가 @glory7님의 소중한 댓글에 시세변동을 감안하여 $0.010을 보팅해서 $0.032을 지켜드리고 가요. 곰돌이가 지금까지 총 7588번 $101.043을 보팅해서 $102.562을 구했습니다. @gomdory 곰도뤼~

Right attitude and good proposition.

In the short term we should consider there might be more disagreements in top 20 as a consequence which could slow down decisions but i see much more involvement in voting the right witnesses in the long term. I support the idea!

Thank you for the support!

  • btw, see you at the battlefield(go Splinterlands!)

곰돌이가 @glory7님의 소중한 댓글에 시세변동을 감안하여 $0.021을 보팅해서 $0.021을 지켜드리고 가요. 곰돌이가 지금까지 총 7587번 $101.033을 보팅해서 $102.530을 구했습니다. @gomdory 곰도뤼~

Proposal: 1SP 1 vote

It would be interesting if someone would take all the stake right now and show us how the current scenario would play out if 1SP - 1 vote was implemented.

If you simply model it with votes currently cast, you wouldn't necessarily see any rank order change as everyone would be equally affected. Hypothetically the total vests voted on each witness would just decrease by a factor of 30. This is overly simplified as some folks, and particularly the Tron block, are voting on fewer witnesses, in their case 20. The important thing is how it would alter voter behavior after the fact. But it would most assuredly lead to multiple factions having elected blocks of witnesses. Good for decentralization and security, but expect even "normal" hard forks that add features or change functionality to be much harder to achieve in a far more "political" landscape.

Well the big accounts can spend only 1 time their vote that would be less influence in the witnesses. It would very interesting how this plays out.

Its obvious, it would give whales the power to block pretty much any hardfork on one hand, but make it difficult to gain complete control on the other.
Safer than what we got now, but is it necessary?

Few are discussing the negatives and I'm really afraid when people say there are no negatives.

So a bad actor that wants to screw over the chain could potentially halt any major development if he had a big enough of a stake. Would it be worth for them though?

I think people are worried about Steem merging with Tron. Wreck Steem to help Tron. If Tron promises the bigger actors enough, they may consider it, especially if their business on Steem could work on Tron.

Most of the dapps arent really compatible with TRON and outside Koreans that seem to lack interest in decentralization i dont see anyone moving there.
Steem was purchased, as you said, to help TRON signal boost just like was case with LINO and DLIVE.

Yeah, I don't get it. I knew some people would have been against it no mater what, but careful consideration and it would have easily turned into a minority against tron. It is surprising how many people dont like tron and howsl quickly this happened. I think it will get worse, too.

I'm positive about 1SP 1Vote system as I agree with what you wrote.

In that way, a superWhale can't fully influenced the top 30 witness spots equally. It's a clever way to improve the decentralized nature of steem.

Thanks KR community for making a stand on this current issue.

Thank you for the reply!

I agree something needs to be done to bring Steem closer to decentralization. Currently it's simply modelled after America's non-Representative Republic where an Oligarch rules.

I need to see some viable concrete plans to move forward with before I cast any votes.

I like 1 user 1 vote that can be split up however the user wants. This vote needs to be equal for all users. Weighted stake voting for governance is not a representation of the platform.

A four week powerdown period seems to be the best time period for the platform, imo.

We need a better system in place so the community can veto a hardfork if we don't agree with the consensus. Being able to vote them out reactively isn't acceptable in my eyes.

Free downvotes need to be abolished. We do need downvotes to combat theft, but not to attack others with.

Exchanges should not operate by different rules than the community. The current situation shows that. They subverted the community and need to powerdown at the same pace we do. Starting at the current 13 weeks.

There's more, but I understand babysteps is how it works.

Witnesses, step up and start winning with ideas instead of letting your egos rule you.😀

As you pointed out, we should try to agree on small things (babystep) first so that we can resolve the issue.

I totally agree on your proposal.

Posted using Partiko Android

Thank you for the support!

I am also tend to a similar offer. It seems that this is how the voting mechanism EOS works. The current system where each user can vote for 30 candidates looks silly. I don’t know who even came up with such a weird type of voting.

Period: 13 weeks(current), 4 weeks, or 1 week?

4 weeks looks like a compromise with which most participants agree.

my guess is the same. Let's see how the discussion would turn out.

While I think it would make more sense for the number of votes to be less than 20 to prevent a single account from dominating the top 20 with their votes I think it doesn't really address the long term issues because whoever is behind that big account can theoretically just split their stake to multiple accounts that they control to achieve the same effect if they want to.

It seems to me that one problem may be related to the "upvote only" nature of the witness voting system (and the SPS voting system) -- the only way to "vote out" a witness whose policies you don't like is to "vote in" someone you like better. I haven't thought through all the implications, but I wonder if adding "witness downvotes" (and maybe the ability to vote with percentages rather than just binary) would help -- then Steemit could decide to not upvote their own witnesses but could protect themselves by downvoting witnesses that run code that they have concerns about, which would be a de facto veto power for them given the large size of their stake.

It might also be a good idea to limit the amount of SP that a witness vote can be worth, e.g. no matter how big the stake behind it the vote only counts for a maximum of x% of STEEM in circulation. (Although this basically has the same problem that I mentioned at the top, which is that a large account can theoretically circumvent it by splitting up their stake across multiple accounts.)

I agree with you that implementing downvote for witness voting could enhance the system. But for now, I would like to start the basic step first.

I think this is a worthwhile proposal to secure the blockchain. It would make HFs more difficult but at the same time increase security and decentralization.

Thank you for the support!

곰돌이가 @glory7님의 소중한 댓글에 시세변동을 감안하여 $0.017을 보팅해서 $0.025을 지켜드리고 가요. 곰돌이가 지금까지 총 7590번 $101.073을 보팅해서 $102.616을 구했습니다. @gomdory 곰도뤼~

Hi @glory7!

Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 4.056 which ranks you at #2392 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has improved 89 places in the last three days (old rank 2481).

In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 95 contributions, your post is ranked at #16.

Evaluation of your UA score:
  • Some people are already following you, keep going!
  • The readers like your work!
  • Try to work on user engagement: the more people that interact with you via the comments, the higher your UA score!

Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server

good idea!^^

The 4 week power down that was discussed in the past by witnesses for all accounts not just exchanges sounds good. Half of the community were for it before, that could be implemented in return for all sock puppet witnesses being withdrawn. To start the de escalation. Lets work on making it work for the community. No one likes this situation and wants Steem back to running smoothly as it was before. Lets work on growing the chain not fighting each other. Everything started off on the wrong foot but if that can’t be forgotten I don’t see how this chain will continue.

I think there will be 4 weeks powerdown (if any compromise is made), no exception for exchanges is the likely option. We will see.

I did not understand this from starting that why steemit provide 1 account can vote 30 witnesses. I completely disagree with this concept from starting. Now, this shows a real problem.

Nice thought @glory7

I completely 100% agree with 1 steem account should have only 1 witness vote.

Thank you for the support!

That's sounds like a rational and useful idea. I hope you will discuss is with the other witnesses.

Oh and if anyone cares, I'm against faster power downs and I think giving exchanges special rights is a total no go.

Congratulations @glory7!
Your post was mentioned in the Steem Hit Parade in the following categories:

  • Comments - Ranked 3 with 99 comments
  • Pending payout - Ranked 8 with $ 60,35


Spamming comments is frowned upon by the community. Continued comment spamming may result in the account being Blacklisted.

More Information:
The Art of Commenting

Spamming comments is frowned upon by the community. Continued comment spamming may result in the account being Blacklisted.

More Information:
The Art of Commenting

Qué bueno ha sido leer esta propiedad y el feedback me deja mucho valor, además rescata mi esperanza de que hay más gente pensando en la oportunidad de elevar el tema de la descentralización por encima del conflicto para solucionar en lo posible el problema de fondo y no de forma.

I think that this is a good idea. For all the reasons you mention. I think this is an important thing to change to help decentralize the blockchain.

I think reducing the Powerdiwn period is also a good idea, but I wish we could choose between 13 weeks and 4 weeks individually.

I think this is a great proposal to match up with related parties.

Thank you for the support!

A few points:

  1. You don't need a super majority for a softfork to lock up stake. You just need a normal majority. (Longest chain wins).

  2. It's funny how many people throw around 1SP1 Vote, or reduce to three votes etc without doing the math right now.

If we have 1 SP 1 Vote we will have much less vote overlap than what we have now which makes it much easier for a big stake to push multiple witnesses in the top 20. This way Justin would easy be able to get always not only 5 witnesses but a majority of witnesses in the top 20.

This is not even close to decentralization.

  1. I focused only on the number to prevent hard fork, as it seems that that is the number 22.2 witnesses cared

  2. I have done the math and showed the logic. Not sure what you mean here.

If you think you have math proof, please write it. At least from what I analyzed, the current system is much easier for big whales to dominate, as we have seen that after 22.5 justin alone took all top 20.

It is not "short"! thank you for your posting - it seems that I need to read it tomorrow when I got some free time.

For me defense, I could've made a 10 page double column paper out of this =D

I expect you to use LaTeX when you do that =)

What else? =D

Can someone do a simulation? I'm curious what happens.
If it's a bad idea trust me... Justin's crew will find out and use it against us and we won't manage to convince the Koreans that it's a stupid idea without some solid math.
Could someone simulate a few 1sp 1vote scenarios.

Nice constructive post. Really good to see Korean community involved. I'd love to see Korean witnesses comming in as well!

I would support your proposal. Remember that most common user aren't able to research 30 witnesses for their votes, so that's another pro for 1 Steem = 1 Vote.

I cannot agree more on the last part. I myself have had no idea for most of the 30 witnesses I (or my proxy) voted.