An idea, for a potential direction to increase the strength of governance in the Steem community.
Change 30 votes to 10. Do not multiply the stake behind them - smaller numbers are better (they take less space!)
5 votes are support votes.
5 votes are unsupport votes.
Allow users to weight their 5 votes, so a vote could look like:
I have 10,000 SP.
I distribute 5000SP of approval voting to Witness 1, 3000 to witness 2, 2000 to witness 3.
OR
I distribute 2000SP of voting equally to my 5 chosen witneses.
What about the unsupport votes?
Same principle, which allows members to "downvote" witnesses they may not approve.
Benefits
Defence against hostile take overs
Increased Competition for top 20 witness spots
Better governance and prevention of "flag wars" on content (people who want to downvote other witnesses will have to think about what their downvote will do, by elevating a witness that is outside the top 20, for example)
Cons
Well, the same as everything else, humanity. :D
Cool, I have quite a similar view: https://steempeak.com/palnet/@hotbit/steem-blockchain-multivote-security-vulnerability
I'm not sure about the downvotes, though.
I like the idea of downvotes for witnesses and reducing the number of witness votes sounds like a good idea too.
The weighting thing will do my head in unless it's resolved at an interface level with sliders or something, otherwise I'm just going to cry at it XD
lol
I don't know enough about the voting system to feel that my opinion really matters here, but how you write it down here, it sounds as if that could work. But then again, I don't know enough about the whole system. It took me quite some time before I even cast a vote on my main account, let alone my alts. I never really thought my vote mattered. Now I see, community coming together and every vote counts.
Curious to see what others think about this though, so gonna follow this one ;)
Simpler is better, less votes, more simple!
Thanks for your feedback.
It sounds like it could work, and less votes probably also means that more people cast them (I think)... Let's see how others think about it.
The current system is an abuse, IMHO.
https://steempeak.com/palnet/@hotbit/steem-blockchain-multivote-security-vulnerability
I like this system allot....
I also think it makes the witness voting system more fair and not easily munipulated thus giving a much more fair shake to those wanting to become a top witness.
And hopefully it takes "flag wars" away from content, and moves it to the wintess vote section, which means that those who do genuinely want to govern the chain must own a larger stake, and then, as a result, act in its best interests.
thanks a lot for your support !!!
(if you dont want these or consider it spam then please leave a reply to this comment instead of downvoting and i will follow up)
unless stated otherwise, you receive these because you voted on a @tyrnannoght post
$trendotoken
Congratulations @tyrnannoght, you successfuly trended the post shared by @holoz0r!
@holoz0r will receive 0.09021375 TRDO & @tyrnannoght will get 0.06014250 TRDO curation in 3 Days from Post Created Date!
"Call TRDO, Your Comment Worth Something!"
To view or trade TRDO go to steem-engine.com
Join TRDO Discord Channel or Join TRDO Web Site
The Steem blockchain is currently being attacked by a central authority in order to take control of the witnesses. If you are not managing your witness votes, please consider setting @berniesanders as your witness voting proxy by clicking here to help restore the decentralization of Steem.
Definitely less votes. I think 7, as even very hostile, 14 doesn't reach consensus. Lower votes also means that reaching consensus is harder however, the consensus reached might be better.
As for downvotes. I am not sure if it changes much, as the up votes can be moved quickly onto other witnesses anyway. I will have to think more on it.
In general, it should be made as simple and clear as possible, and having less votes helps that a lot. 30 is far too many as it is impossible to know what 30 of them stand for at any given time.
This is the best part.
I'm happy with this idea to be developed and toyed with and built upon, but for all the stuff being flung about right now, the weighted approach of voting that other chains use is probably worth looking at.
Did you read my old posts about these things? They might bring some ideas to work on too.
I've read lots and lots of your posts. Probably more than I've read novels lately. If someone asked me who my most read author is, it would be @tarazkp
These are from mid and late 2018:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@tarazkp/discussion-to-change-witness-voting-procedures
https://steemit.com/steem/@tarazkp/reducing-the-number-of-witness-votes
I haven't read them in full for years.... but there is likely some ideas and links to more that might help.
Here I go reading more of your stuff. We tend to agree for the most part on the principle,and its amusing that blocktrades predicted a coercion scenario in one of your post replies. Exactly what's happening now.
If we had downvote power to say "no" to the crony witnesses currently elected, this whole chapter of drama would've been over as soon as people realised what was happening
Yes, we discussed it. Many others didn't agree with us as it was too far fetched. Where would someone get so much Steem?...
I think the much lower number of votes would be enough. Downvotes annoy many people, when there is 11% of the pool in play for 20 accounts, it might et very messy.
7votes? More than 1 is always wrong. https://steempeak.com/palnet/@hotbit/steem-blockchain-multivote-security-vulnerability
de-centralized tribalism and governance has always sounded funny, downvotes i dont think is ever the solution
i think maybe expiration dates ... obama can not claim the presidency cus he had more votes than trump now sometime x years in the past (from stale accounts or gods know how many they claimed for themselves)
why does everyone consider the elder protectorate to be little elliott nesses
expiration, keeps them on their toes, prevents dead accounts from counting (in-active members) and ... the statistics guys can have a field-day figuring out who is working that election-fraud mojo with owned/proxied-owned and fake-owned claimed or bought accounts
what's not to like ?
k, the consultancy fee is 1.000.000 steem
thanks
(keeps them on their toes too, no slacking once you're in the white house as the clock keeps ticking, HEY, like a witness once said "now you have to get off your ass and do something)
(haha LOLMAO ... its been most entertaining so far)
the current witnesss voting system is swiss cheese, i have been shouting that for quite some time but im not incrowd (and i actually dont wanna be)
I do like the idea of vote decay.
Interesting idea, but makes the system more complicated, and can also be misused by (mutually) downvoting the other party. I think simply reducing the Witness votes to 3-10 would be an interesting approach worth trying out.
I like the "I don't approve" option. As it allows you to voice dissent. Often, not participating in a process to show dissent doesn't accurately reflect the level of dissatisfaction in a thing.
As stated, the problem is "humanity" :P
Congratulations @holoz0r, your post successfully recieved 0.09021375 TRDO from below listed TRENDO callers:
To view or trade TRDO go to steem-engine.com
Join TRDO Discord Channel or Join TRDO Web Site