There are lots of great ideas in the comments of that post, and although I don't remember the discussion I just saw that I upvoted many of them when they were written. Diminishing votes, a curve that gets flatter, limiting posts. All of those would be ways to better the system. Anything requiring big stakes to be spread. Instead, the recent changes went against the small guys and reintroduced favoring big stakes more and incentivizing them to collude. I don't get it, and there's nobody in the comments here who could explain on which problem exactly that part of the EIP is improving.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The stated reason for the regressive curve was to:
In practice, it was to combat bidbots, self-voting and other selfish behaviour from escaping detection, so they would be more visible to the stakeholders for downvoting.
But yes, of course, it goes against the minnows. My vote went down from $0.02 to $0.00.
That's my whole issue though. The underlying concept of stake-weighted voting is fundamentally flawed. Some things get better, others get worse, with every update. It might be a marginal improvement every time, but it's simply not enough. It's the definition of insanity to try small changes 21 (well, not really 21, but you know what I mean) different times but refuse to acknowledge and fix the actual problem once and for all. We need a radical new solution.
Sybil attack is real though. Dan introduced voice with the requirement for users to kyc themselves. That's no option imo.
Maybe I've been blind to it, but the problem with small accounts hiding in the noise didn't seem so big to me to shoot all minnows to solve it.
I agree, it does seem like an anti-social move to throw minnows under the bus.
And yes, sibyl attack is real. Dan's solution is KYC, Ned's solution was SMT + oracles. I hope someone comes up with a better solution. Giving the rich all the power is not the solution.