I agree with most of what you've written here.
Pretty much any 'solution' can be gamed. I explain the rationale behind the voting power limit in my last post, however ultimately I'm not wedded to any single idea. Because as you say
effective stakeholder consensus is what really matters.
Which is why,
I'm surprised about an "experiment" being undertaken by a handful of large SP holders that affects the whole userbase without discussion, let alone consensus.
What is being missed by some, is that everyone has a vote here. Some whales are choosing not to vote and others, including myself, are choosing to vote in disagreement on allocating rewards on the basis of those who are voting. The 'handful of large SP holders' are part of the user base and we are voting our stake as we choose. In fact we are doing so in a manner that minimizes the in-built power imbalance. There is no getting away from that handful of large SP holders having a huge influence, the only question is the nature of that influence, which is slightly different now than it was a few days ago, and indeed has far less effect on what you call the 'whole userbase' now than then. What we are doing, really, is nothing more than getting out of the way.
You are absolutely entitled to upvote and downvote as you see fit.
Just like I'm entitled to agree or disagree with how votes are being exercised and voice my opinions.
I agree there are is an obvious "in-built power imbalance." However my point is simple. If the intention is to 'get large SP holders out-the-way', let's get some kind of consensus on how best to achieve this, if this is what the majority of stakeholders want.