I hate to say it but DPoS is looking pretty weak. It wasn't looking strong before but all DPoS chains have all kinds of governance drama.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I hate to say it but DPoS is looking pretty weak. It wasn't looking strong before but all DPoS chains have all kinds of governance drama.
I don't think you're wrong, but I also think DPoS governance drama is out in the open where a lot of PoW governance drama still happens on github repos, within mining pools, and in back-room private discussions. There's also the 51% attacks that happen as well. Hive has been strong. Steem is no longer a blockchain and hasn't been for some time, so comparing the two is apples to organges.
No one seems questioning the extent of drama surrounding DPoS Governance, Luke, what @brianphobos seems to be suggesting is that DPoS Governance seems lacking. Meaning less secure, less trustworthy and more susceptible to corruption than other more traditional crypto governance systems like PoW.
No amount of back room discussion is about to change the fact that in the STEEM legacy forks the ninja mined fiasco is kicked further down the fork in the road. No longer STINC being the threat of attack the ninja plunder is now safely tucked away in a slush fund guarded from plunder by @gtg's Return Proposal ((#0); ensuring that no proposal shall see approval without a majority of approval from the V.22.2 Cabal.
How was this different than the old STEEM? Oh yeah, decentralisation. That narrative rings a bell.
Even with STINC's ninja mined horde out of the tabulation due to it being in a slush fund, here's a fairly recent state of affairs... which seems pretty weak to me.
Can you explain a bit more about what the colors mean in this graphic? Is this related in some way to account activity or number of accounts or something else? Whales have more power in DPoS, which is understandable and the system was ever changed to adjust for this they would simply split up their stake into many smaller accounts to pretend to be minnows. Ultimately, those with skin in the game get to direct how the chain evolves over time. That's the main premise of DPoS.
What concerns me most is that the STEEM token still has market value, even with so much consensus leaving the Steem chain. This says to me people don't really care about blockchain rights or actual value, they just want to speculate on a token.
My understanding is that the colors represent that more active HPs as opposed to those accounts simply holding and not active yet it would be best to run that by @arcange to verify that.
At present that is indeed the main premise. My feeling is that that premise fosters a continuation of the status quo which in ground breaking technology is not the best idea. One approach that could help to shake up the status quo, in terms of reward distribution at least, would be to have one's HIVE Power being weighted against how much rewards one takes from the ecosystem. Let's take as an example an issue like self voting. Those that are self voting an earning large rewards as a consequence would find that their voting power would decline in some weighted fashion so that their witnesses vote, up votes, etc. would have less power. In that way the status quo could be more easily challenged as there would be those primarily here for the milking and those primarily for the community. Over time the milkers' influence would wane.
Or perhaps a billionaire is keeping things pumped until the upward pressure on HIVE comes to an end with the last of the power downs on STEEM. Until a week or so ago my 2500 BTC satoshi sell order on Poloniex (JS' exchange) would normally be met within a week time frame. Something was driving STEEM up to 2500 BTC satoshi on a weekly basis.
Very interesting idea in terms of keep tracking of the takers vs. the holders. I've thought about this for a while in terms of the exchange transfer reports I used to do. It could even been done as at an interface level so people would know how much someone extracts verses deposits in terms of value. Either way, though, I think it could be gamed and by that I mean separate accounts could be created and funds moved around so that some accounts have terrible reputation as they are only used for dumping value and other accounts are kept "clean" where deposits happen.
Yep, it will be studied to be gamed. No question. 😎
Still not convinced it would not help in the weakening of the status quo, though.