"...the objective of decentralization has been fulfilled..."
That's nothing I have ever said, in the above comment, nor anywhere. In fact, I said "... if this isn't merely an artifact of transition but a durable paradigm shift, it's a dramatic increase in decentralization of stake, which will affect governance."
I don't think we disagree at all, so I'm a bit confused that you seem to take my comment as disagreement. Regarding governance and rewards, stake is what delivers influence on governance. Rewards are how all of my stake has been received, and all of my influence on governance gained. Increasing my rewards will increase my stake, and increase my influence on governance.
That's DPoS.
Yeah, we don't disagree.
It was just that sentence and the graphic coming with it that I didn't concur with. For me, even if it's a durable shift, it will only have a feeble impact on decentralization. I don't know the statistics but I feel like most stake around here was either : bought, obtained through curation rewards thanks to a big Steemit Inc. delegation or another kind of monopoly/favouristism/nepotism or ninja-mined. Not obtained through post rewards.
So yeah, a better distribution of rewards will have a little effect on decentralization of governance, but I think it's marginal. And considering that since the EIP, the more stake you have the more you win (through the new curve), in fact a better median reward doesn't necessarily mean the rewards are better distributed. If current users win more but the top 1%'s rewards increase more than that increase of the median, we're going towards more centralization and not less.
That's our only disagreement. Essentially, I'm just a bit more pessimistic about that potential shift to a better rewards distribution and its potential effect on decentralization.
This is mathematically impossible. If whales get more, the median gets less. It's just a mathematical function. The most recent graphic @arcange provided reveals that both the average and median payout rose, and this reveals that the average and median payouts are converging, meaning that whales are getting less rewards now, and plebs are getting more.
This isn't mandated by the rewards mechanism, but the result of restraint by the whales. They could change their minds at any time, or their stake end up in the wallets of those with less restraint.
The present system of DPoS governance is just incapable of ensuring decentralization, mathematically. In order to achieve robust decentralization, an additional metric(s) must be added to influence on governance.
I believe our present overlords are more benevolent than Sun Yuchen, and that is the only reason Hive is censorship resistant today. Unless we adopt a more robust governance mechanism, that is temporary, and that's just mathematical fact.
I totally agree. Yeah for the median/whales it's impossible with a constant number of posts and a constant HP.
If the number of posts decrease you could have an increase in median (as there's less posts) and a higher increase for the whales' posts. As there's the same amount of HP divided into less posts, then both are possible.
What I wanted to say is : as long as there less activity/posts on the chain, it's too soon to draw any conclusion about these numbers. We need either the same number of posts that Steem had so we can compare, or we need a few weeks of data to have a new standard for the Hive chain, and then only we can see how it evolves.
But for the part about current DPoS being incapable of decentralization, the current elite being better than the one on Steem and the need of a better system, I'm 100% with you.