So otoh and instaminers get all the votes? Your centralizing your system even more.
Why should it be any other way ?
I think what Evan's put forward is certainly profound and the ramifications for use of blockchain technology in this way are revolutionary.
I too though am concerned by some aspects of how voting like this might actually play out in practise.
I just posted this on DCT:
Quite a brilliant plan Evan, with the potential to transform the entire way we think about decision making and organisational management.
One area that I'm keen to hear yours and other people's views on, is how an approach like this will handle the fact that, unlike say elections of politicians where one vote supposedly has one value (i.e. a wealthy person's vote is equivalent to the vote of a lower socio-economic voter), the power of the vote within a consensus mechanism like this is very much skewed towards those with large masternode numbers. This is in effect no different to shareholder voting within publicly listed companies where large shareholder groups can heavily influence board proposals, even to the point of voting for individuals to be appointed or removed from boards or dramatic mergers and acquisitions agreed to that may be detrimental to smaller shareholders.
Within the voting rights for shareholders it's seen as "he or she that has the highest risk exposure by investing in the stock should therefore have the greatest voting rights" and this is certainly valid to a degree.Where it starts to fall down is when voting is facilitating greater and greater levels of monopolistic control (i.e. "the rich get richer"). Although crypto by default tends to negate some aspects of this, I'm expecting there will still be many ways large masternode holders could end up with substantial "political" weight to influence support for proposals that bring them even greater influence.
Somewhat of a can of worms I'm opening here, but I think this aspect needs to be discussed (certainly prior to a "masternode vote many yay" command gets introduced!)
In the context of a market, where people take different levels of risk and contribute proportionately to their investment it totally has to be one vote per collateral bond of trust, as you explain. This system is better in many other ways, as the decisions are taken facing the public and by presenting initiatives that are openly discussed not in private board meetings like with traditional foundations. It is also design to be flexible and outlast early adopters, you can't just place yourself in the context of the current reality. Decades from now when none of the early adopters are around the blockchain still would have a system for self-preservation, this systems floats as masternode operators move in and out of the game and as distribution changes in time. It is actually brilliant and I like the concept very much.
There will be other applications in which Decentralized Governance by Blockchain can be applied outside of the context of a market. I proposed an idea in which the FIAT budget of a gubernatorial institution is pegged to a blockchain which emission would correspond to the said budget. Government employees are then paid from the blockchain in a transparent way and public initiatives are actively voted on by an assembly of representatives in things that are related to the executive branch in a completely new way. The possibilities are endless.
All this, but I want to step back and look at the whole picture. This system allows
anyone with an idea to put it forward, discuss it with the community and have a chance to get their project funded. Masternodes will act in the best interests of DASH as a whole because they've got a vested interest. So, with all the debate from everyone, they make as informed a decision as possible. And if a project is given the green light and is funded, then when the project stalls or is dropped, the project can be cancelled immediately. Just like firing an employee. Even so, I see masternode owners needing to rely on boards or committees to inform them of most things going on in the end.
But now take a couple of steps back even further. Imagine DASH grows even bigger. Imagine that one of the helpful projects creates it's own income stream, and that income stream is used to fund a new "chain" of production? These new branches that might have once been funded by the masternode system, might now become the new hub of development entirely funded by their original project and independent of DASH entirely. Do this enough times over time, and you have a web of production, a whole new industry of all kinds of things, based off of DASH. It truly is limitless and truly global.
Now think on this. Money represents time skill and effert. The more time skill and effort put into the system, the more money is created (or the more value money is given). There may only be so many DASH available, but it's only a unit with flexible value. The value will go up multifold as time work and effort are pumped into it. So basically, what I'm saying here is that there is no "physical" reason why DASH couldn't become the world's money ........... period. And yes, it's that much like cash, and that easy to use that DASH actually has every real chance of making it and bringing down the financial system of yesteryear.
I don't see it happening where the world falls into chaos, but as the grass-roots effort of DASH (and other blockchain technologies such as Ethereum), the banksters and yes, even governments will eventually
have to fold in. This will likely be either a double system for a long time to come, but soon blockchain technology will be a part of every infrastructure and through acceptance there, understanding of what we are doing here will evolve, and slowly but surely, the world will come into the fold. Not because of the promise of making tons of money but because it's so extremely trustless and open and the people will demand it.
Ok, I've said it before, I'm quite a dreamer. But if it isn't DASH, the world surely will fall into the fold of blockchain tech, that much I can see! And why not DASH?
