@nickyhavey advised me, to adress this topic in this community.
I would really like to listen your opinion here to my suggestion.
I would like to discuss the following blog entry:
"30 day cooldown time on newly powered up HP for governance voting.
The Hive governance system is made up of both witness voting and DHF voting. When additional new funds are powered up, their weight will NOT count towards governance voting for the following 30 days. This adds a healthy buffer period to any potential malicious coordinated takeover attempt which allows the community a chance to respond, and is an important yet reasonable safeguard to help prevent attacks via funds stored on exchanges without impacting funds in any way."
I do not know what the author has in mind, but I do not understand his view that coins are not disadvantaged if the voting right that is normally inherent to them is withdrawn for a certain period of time.
If one coin has a voting weight and the other one does not then this is a disadvantage, f.e. at stock exchange exist preferred shares, who are (at least in germany) provided with a minimum dividend and very often also with an additional dividend to compensate for the disadvantage that they have no voting rights.
But here an investor should have only disadvantages, namely no voting rights for 30 days, without any compensation ?
Above all, from my point of view this is completely unnecessary, because the fact that an investor with 50% + 0.001 HIVE can actually determine the 30 top witnesses is only possible with the electoral system that is widespread here, that ultimately follows the American electoral system with "The Winner take it all ".
If in a vote for a German parliament, a party has received 50% + 1 vote, it will hardly have 30 out of 30 seats.
So where is the problem and how can you solve it?
Now the problem lies in the combination of two peculiarities of the actual voting system:
- Everyone has 30 votes.
- Everyone can give each witness only one vote.
So it would be so easy to solve this problem in two ways:
- Reduction of witness voices.
- Possibility to accumulate votes.
Let's take a look at how these options work.
How would be the effect of the possibilities for an hardfork if we assume that 85% of the top 20 witnesses (this is my information - if this is wrong - please correct it) have to agree that the hardfork take place.
Current:
- An investor with 50% + 0.001 HIVE chooses 30 witnesses and they occupy positions 1-30 even if they don't get any votes from anyone else. So with 50% + 0.001 HIVE you have enough power to decide alone.
With 1 witness vote per account:
Suddenly 5% of Hivepower is enough to safely reach a place among the Top 20 Witnesses.
This means, that a blocking minority would already exist with 20% of the votes (certainly 4 out of 20 witnesses from the top 20). So an investor need now not 50% + 0.001 like before, he need more than 80% to decide alone.
With accumulation of votes:
Here you can of course discuss all possible scenarios, but if you assume that you can give the 30 votes to 30 different witnesses (like it is today the one and only possibility) or to only one witness all 30 votes or any combination between this, you will also find out that in this case 5% is enough for your Witness to be in the top 20 or 20% for a blocking minority of 4 witnesses.
So there are two good alternatives to not allow a new investor with 50% + 0.001 HIVE of capital to determine the top 20 (or top 30) witnesses alone.
In both cases, this would require more than 80% for 17 from 20 witnesses instead of 50% + 0.001 HIVE for 20 of 20 (or 30 of 30) witnesses - so why this regulation, which naturally disadvantages new investors?
In my opinion it should be an important minority right, that the voting system allow a person or a group with 5% of capital to determine one Top-20-Witness. I really cannot imagine that an new investor will accumulate more than 80% of hivepower to gain control over the plattform.
So my opinion is that it's not necessary to cut rights of new investors for 30 days - the better way is to strenghen the minority-rights and take care that a person or group who own 50% + 0,001 of the Hivepower cannot determine ALL Top-20-witnesses.
I am really very curious about your opinion.