Every single person that has SP today (no matter what the amount or when it was acquired) earned/bought that SP under the premise that the SP would give them influence over the site's rewards pool. There are people that invested heavily early on specifically so they would get that power. If the rules were changed such that your SP only gave you power over 75% of the reward pool - then it is violating the agreement with everyone who currently has SP.
Imagine you were founding a startup company, and you got 5 venture capitalists to invest in your company. You formed an agreement with each of them that they would provide services/funds in exchange for 10% control of the company (each). Then a year later after the company started to grow, you decided to say well, actually - we are only going to give you each 7.5% control now. We want to take the other 2.5% and give it to our employees, so that they have a say in the way things are done as well. That would be a violation of the contract that you formed with the original shareholders.
[Edit] Updated the numbers of the example to better line up with the percentages in your proposal.
Thats exactly why I have bought and earned SP and I still have no real influence or any real hope of getting any under the current system.
I am not saying that the fact you cannot easily acquire influence right now is not a problem. I agree it is a problem.
There is a huge difference though between your issue though (you did not get as much influence as you had hoped/wanted/expected) and a violation of contract.
Any SP that you bought and earned is following the rules of the blockchain. You may have thought/hoped/expected that it would give you more influence than it did - but that is not a breach of contract. The blockchain is still following the same rules for you that it does for everyone else, which is that you have a stake-weighted influence in the rewards pool, based on the amount of your vested shares compared to the total.
Every single person that has SP today (no matter what the amount or when it was acquired) earned/bought that SP under the premise that the SP would give them influence over the site's rewards pool. There are people that invested heavily early on specifically so they would get that power. If the rules were changed such that your SP only gave you power over 75% of the reward pool - then it is violating the agreement with everyone who currently has SP.
Imagine you were founding a startup company, and you got 5 venture capitalists to invest in your company. You formed an agreement with each of them that they would provide services/funds in exchange for 10% control of the company (each). Then a year later after the company started to grow, you decided to say well, actually - we are only going to give you each 7.5% control now. We want to take the other 2.5% and give it to our employees, so that they have a say in the way things are done as well. That would be a violation of the contract that you formed with the original shareholders.
[Edit] Updated the numbers of the example to better line up with the percentages in your proposal.
Thats exactly why I have bought and earned SP and I still have no real influence or any real hope of getting any under the current system.
I am not saying that the fact you cannot easily acquire influence right now is not a problem. I agree it is a problem.
There is a huge difference though between your issue though (you did not get as much influence as you had hoped/wanted/expected) and a violation of contract.
Any SP that you bought and earned is following the rules of the blockchain. You may have thought/hoped/expected that it would give you more influence than it did - but that is not a breach of contract. The blockchain is still following the same rules for you that it does for everyone else, which is that you have a stake-weighted influence in the rewards pool, based on the amount of your vested shares compared to the total.