Yes, the damage is done.. by the actions the accounts made to support the centralization of the Steem chain.
As the post said, they are still free to take part.. but based on a specific criteria that went against decentralization, they didn’t get given a new asset - HIVE.
The decentralized Hive community now has the option to still allocate that new asset or not.
The action is a Boolean. Vote can’t capture context. It isn’t entirely conclusive to ascertain intention etc based on static vote. The proof of brain vote has more dynamics. People voting on witness may not mean they support ideals. I vote too and in many cases, not with the intention of playing a role in governance. On blockchain even moreso is it possible that people can have a variety of actions, even unconventional. Though it is a public ledger it does have an anonymity paradigm as well. People don’t necessarily need to explain actions or even participate in governance. I may want to say that a person voted on witness to support a certain ideal etc but can I be conclusive to where I use this as basis for a governance decision. In my case no. Truth people don’t have to explain why they vote, except voluntarily cos again there is an anonymity paradigm. There are accounts that come here never to say a word and on blockchain, well they are allowed. Perhaps the governance layer can learn from the proof of brain layer, where vote is more dynamic and may form a better basis for governance, than the witness vote which is mostly static and entirely stake-based. There is a lot for learn from this and perhaps aspects to improve
Yes, the damage is done.. by the actions the accounts made to support the centralization of the Steem chain.
As the post said, they are still free to take part.. but based on a specific criteria that went against decentralization, they didn’t get given a new asset - HIVE.
The decentralized Hive community now has the option to still allocate that new asset or not.
The action is a Boolean. Vote can’t capture context. It isn’t entirely conclusive to ascertain intention etc based on static vote. The proof of brain vote has more dynamics. People voting on witness may not mean they support ideals. I vote too and in many cases, not with the intention of playing a role in governance. On blockchain even moreso is it possible that people can have a variety of actions, even unconventional. Though it is a public ledger it does have an anonymity paradigm as well. People don’t necessarily need to explain actions or even participate in governance. I may want to say that a person voted on witness to support a certain ideal etc but can I be conclusive to where I use this as basis for a governance decision. In my case no. Truth people don’t have to explain why they vote, except voluntarily cos again there is an anonymity paradigm. There are accounts that come here never to say a word and on blockchain, well they are allowed. Perhaps the governance layer can learn from the proof of brain layer, where vote is more dynamic and may form a better basis for governance, than the witness vote which is mostly static and entirely stake-based. There is a lot for learn from this and perhaps aspects to improve
Those will be group appeals. Those are made by the community and then approved by the community. It's not submissive at all.