Preparing for the Four-Party Dialogue as a representative from the Korean community(scheduled on 3/11(Wed) 11pm KST), I am focusing on specific issues that we may discuss, instead of vague things like "we love STEEM".
Background
I have read roadmaps from the participants(Steem foundation, Tron foundation, and Steem witnesses) but I have to admit that these ones are "good" in nature but definitely lack details. In other words, if these are all the opinions from participants I do not think we can reach any kind of agreement.
Compromises are needed to reach an agreement, and to get there we first need to check what are the "absolute NO" for each party. After eliminating them, then we may negotiate on other issues.
Analysis of the current situation
Justin says that he wants to be sure that his accounts(and funds) will not be locked up, like in 22.2.
From my point of view, leaving possibility of getting frozen again is absolute NO for Justin. It is scary even if it is a mere possibility, and he has actually seen that it might actually happen if super-majority of top 20 witnesses decides to do so.
And we know that under the current DPoS system, basically everything is possible if super-majority of top 20 witnesses agree. So giving up witness voting rights as some 22.2 community asks for would be absolute NO for him.
On the other hand, 22.2 witnesses worry that as we have seen in 22.5, Justin may take super-majority of top 20 and do whatever hard fork if Steem INC accounts' witness voting rights are not restricted.
- In fact, the 22.2 witnesses made an urgent request to the Korean community (@proxy.token) that proxy.token would vote for 22.2 witnesses so that Justin may not hard fork, and proxy.token changed the votes so that 7 of top 20 witnesses are 22.2 witnesses.
Proposal: 1SP 1 vote
Achieved Goal: neither Justin/22.2 witnesses cannot do hard fork by having at least 5 among top 20 witnesses.
Proof(rough version):
Justin controls about 25% of total SP available. If he uses this voting right for 5 candidates, each get about 5%.
There can be at most 15 witnesses who may have more than 5%. Suppose there are 16 candidates with >5% witness votes. It means that the total witness votes > 16 * 5% + 5 * 5%(Justin's) = 105%, but the total witness votes should be at most 100%. Contradiction.
The other way is much easier. It is pretty clear that Justin cannot have 16 top witnesses with 25% share.
- The beauty of this method is that it does not require any "trust" or "promise".
It makes sense
Almost all democracy adopts 1 person 1 vote, which is equivalent 1 steem 1 vote here.
And do you really think 1 steem 30 votes makes sense, when we vote for only 20 main witnesses? At least to me, it sounds like voting for 2 candidates for the presidential election.
Furthermore, it will alleviate the problem - de facto centrailziation - we already had. We all know that unless you get the vote from big whales like freedom (proxied to @pumpkin), it is very difficult to get into top 20.
- In fact, @aggroed previously touted once that he was the only top 20 who didn't get vote from freedom(pumpkin) and blocktrades.
I believe that reducing the number of votes will help to achieve decentralization (if this is what you value).
Implementation details
I am not a programmer so I do not know how difficult it would be to implement 1 SP 1 vote, but I guess that it won't be too difficult.
And the above argument may be modified in other ways. For example:
1SP 1 vote, but you may vote for multiple candidates with lower power: say you have 100 SP and vote for aggroed and yabapmatt (Go Splinterlands!), then each get 50 SP worth of votes.
1SP 3~5 vote: as long as we keep the total votes low, we still solve the above problem.
Next topic: Powerdown
My next posting will be about Powerdown. More specifically,
Period: 13 weeks(current), 4 weeks, or 1 week?
Exchanges: should exchanges be allowed to powerdown faster?
That's it for today. I am looking forward to reading your feedback and thoughts.
- @roalandp, @shadowspub(@guiltyparties), @justinsunsteemit: I would like you to review this suggestion before the meeting.