I am not sure I follow. The DAO funds cannot be controlled like Steemit Inc so I am not sure we are looking at the same thing.
Unless you are referring to the Witness voting which I agree needs also some consideration as to prevent what we saw take place.
Posted Using LeoFinance
Yes, I was referring to the witness votes and DAO as you said can't be controlled by a seller (Ned) to anyone who wants to buy (JS), but it can be ravaged by a large stakeholder or someone like JS only by buying enough HIVE and powering up, that is still the attack vector I was trying to explain.
Anyways you can't control directly the DAO but you can make a insane proposal to earn the amount you want and with the mentioned stake would pass without problems because nobody is able to counter it with votes against or by other methods.
PD: Well actually there is a method to counter that, everybody voting for the gtg return proposal and making much more difficult to pass any proposal but that would also paralize any other legit proposal.
That is true although there is a limit to the amount of HBD distributed each day but I see your point.
Without the ninja mined stake, the ability to take over like JS is a lot more difficult. The truth is, as it was, without that stake, JS never takes control of Steem. But we should do all we can to spread things out even more with HIVE tokens. That is why distribution is vital.
As for the witness voting, it needs revamping. Is it one account one vote? I dont have the answer but the 30 witness votes makes little sense to me when there are 17 required for consensus. We should start with 15 max per account.
It is all a process and does warrant a great deal of discussion. We need to think about these difference scenarios.
Posted Using LeoFinance
Totally agree with that, I know is difficult but is also necessary imo.
The toughest discussions are the ones needed the most.
It is the path to a much stronger system.
Posted Using LeoFinance