A small group can literally silence accounts by throttling them to 1 transaction/day. Am I right on this? Based on what I just read, the throttle list is controlled by a few, and these throttle list will be decided, not by consensus, but by "delegates". So your small group would then be able to serious limit transactions to any user and no public vote or consensus call.
I smell a slippery slope here but I seem to understand this, it was done out of "emergency"(?), but for the sake of decentralized solutions, please think of them
"You can contact me directly to be added manually to the multi-tx exception list..."
In other words, you have to go through a manual approval process, gatekept by the same centralized actors. Correct? No automated or permission-less way to get whitelisted.
Ok is this selection process going to be transparently open to the public on chain?
If someone has to manually contact a central figure to be granted more than one transaction per day… is that permissionless? Or is it just a club?
"If the account does not have the appropriate amount of BEED then the transactions will be denied."
How is this different from a paywall controlled by a private company?
If Hive Engine’s smart contracts can be updated or modified by the developers, how can anyone trust the system to remain fair or impartial?
How many steps away are you from being silenced?
If the system lets a few actors cut your transaction limit with no vote or warning, how decentralized is your voice here?
Are dissenting users going to be limited here too?
IME centralization leads to corruption without exception.