It doesn't matter if he's convinced himself of that subjectively. In either business or law, when there's even an appearance of a potential conflict (even if you think you could do your job well enough), you stay away from putting yourself in a position where people believe that you may be asked to favor one or the other. It's an objective standard and a matter of trust for the community. That's why corporate shareholders, officers, employees, and other stakeholders demand an adherence to that simple code of ethics.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I understand this perspective, but I don't see the cryptocurrency space in the same light as business or law. Many people are very, very frustrated with the legal system (war on drugs, victimless crimes, new jim crow, etc). They also see the problems of multinational businesses which work so closely with nation state governments as to become indistinguishable to them (regulatory capture, revolving door politics, lobbyists writing bills to regulate themselves, etc).
I don't think these concerns apply to block producers because of how the motivational incentives for DPOS function. The job is clearly outlined, and I don't think there is room to manipulate one way or the other without directly being removed from the position by voters. I guess I'd like to see some more concrete examples of what "potential conflicts" exist within this specific DPOS system.