You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Announcement of Hardfork 23.0
Agreed, I never voted for the other witnesses, but I too thought the stale mate would keep the chain safe until things calmed down. So, I can totally understand that.
I have to side with the hive team that they can pick and choose who they gave the tokens to, but it just caused a lot of bad feelings that I am not sure were worth it in their eyes.
Mostly though, I just no longer trust this deployment of DPOS on either chain and feel frustrated there isn't a greater level of respect for Stake. Investors should avoid.
In regards to Hive, have you seen this? I think it proves that we were given tokens and then the tokens were taken away.
I agree a lot about DPOS. I actually wonder if it would be better to redesign the governance entirely.
I wonder if having 3 groups of 10 main witnesses elected differently would be a good solution. For instance, 10 witnesses chosen by the stake voting for them, 10 chosen for the number of active accounts voting for them, and 10 with the largest amount stake in their wallet that decide to become witnesses. The 10 with the largest stake can either choose to become a witness, or choose to use their stake to vote for the stake based voting. I think this (or something like it) would help to create a much better system of checks and balances. I also wonder if there can be a way to have a community veto of a hardfork or soft fork by allowing the community to vote on it a week prior (or some other method).
Whatever the system becomes, I definitely think it needs to be changed. We plan to possibly write a post about it some day.
No, I hadn't seen it.
At the end of the day for me, this deployment of DPOS has proven a handful of people can not only make undisclosed changes, send false signals but also tamper with stake. That goes against everything I wanted from crypto.
Still could be an okay blogging platform.