Well, the talk is still all out there about governance, How to make our governance better, What needs reviewing and possibly changing and still, after three years we are still where we were in many ways. At least that is the general feel of things when looking at all the comments and suggestions and even ‘complaints’.
One of the things still being brought up is the validity period of a witness vote. Namely, how long does it for, or should I say, ‘How long is it valid for’.
Many of us have touched upon this before, from various different angles and here are a few pointers on what all has been concluded from different people out there:
Witness votes should not be valid for infinity because:
Now I do need to make some notes on this:
The talk of decaying vote value is not acceptable as it undermines the value of a persons investment. The persons investment is what it is, otherwise DPoS loses its fundamental purpose. The time (term) for which the vote is valid for can change, i.e. “count down” from the moment the vote is cast (or until unvoted) i.e. 365 calendar days. This does not affect the foundations of DPoS.
Now as for the points against any changes to the infinite witness votes:
Notes: These are the predominant three points made by those who have not been for and who are still not for a “vote decay” of any kind.
There are probably 100001 other reasons out there, as is the case with those “for a vote decay” but as stated many of those reasons are irrelevant to the grand idea of a fair, just, reasonable, logical and stable voting system.
Me personally, I am definitely for there being a timer added to witness (and proxy) votes.
For the sake of arguing the topic, I shall not play ‘devils advocate’ and argue both sides of this topic, but rather in a clear cut debate style of discussion, go through the “anti vote decay” points and then leave it to others to contribute or just simply think about it.
We all saw that the awareness of the people voting to save our chain when needed has now risen to a level where if needed people are willing to vote for witnesses that they may not usually vote for, for whatever reasons, but when needed, will vote for those who they believe or are convinced could serve the immediate needs of the chain if the stability of the chain is put in danger.
We saw this recently on Steem, with the events during the hostile takeover.
I do have to agree that many of the argumentative style conversations to date on the topic do seem to suggest that some people are wanting to make it “harder” for the existing top20 to stay in the top20.
As for their motives, I do not wish to say that they are all lead by the same ideals, but what I shall state is that in the event that ensuring a means for those in the top20 (the deciding body within our governance) can never fall into a position of “the untouchables” that is by no means a “bad thing”.
Do we really want a governing body that feels it is “untouchable” for whatever reason!
So, that to me personally is reason enough to not place emphasis on the reasons some people have for wanting “vote decay”, but rather a view of “what it brings with it” as far as decentralization and insurances that our governance will not become an “oligarchy” who feel like they can get away with anything they wish to do.
As for the current voting system not being a direct disaster now theory, well, if it gets to the point where it is a disaster, do we have to go through the “fork” process again?
Why? Because foresight of what the issues are leading to was ignored! Seriously.
Do we simply sweep it under the rug again? As was seen to be the case in the eyes of so many people out there when it comes to so many things, including but not limited to witness vote decay!
Looking long term and at the given moment in time that we are in, facing the current realities of Hive, there is no better time than the present to add a countdown timer to witness votes (and proxies).
Think about it. If this is ratified now, it won’t become an issue in the future.
The people who look at the statistics will not be mislead by the figures/numbers of votes cast for individual witnesses and all the potential issues are resolved.
However, as for the “stability of the chain” topic, even if thrown out again as an argument against it, all I shall say is the following:
DPoS is what it is.
If you keep leaning on DPoS as an answer to all your other arguments justifying the ecosystem, then this is again the answer to the point you wish to put out there about the stability of the chain.
We have at this moment over 100 active witness nodes out there.
What, will all 100 of them go down in a terror of fire and brimstone simply because some people may decide not to vote for whatever reason?
Or because one stakeholder forgets to recast a vote or certain votes once a year.
Are we to believe that those people running witness campaigns won’t quickly contact those people to build up their awareness of their responsibilities as stake holders!
Seriously!
I mean, seriously!
I base this upon all the events seen over the past years and am not by no means trying to sound like someone who is condescending towards anyone who thinks otherwise.
Is 365 calendars days enough time for stake holders that do not like voting for new people to sit back 10 minutes and recast their votes?
Is it not realistic to expect that witnesses will not reach out to those people when they want their votes?
Or when they feel that those stake holders may need a friendly reminder to not forget to fulfil their responsibilities as Stake Holders/voters!
Is that not what has been happening all along! I dare say we only need to look at the 0.001 transfers and memos to see that this is constantly happening in plain site on the chain, not to mention off the chain via various communication portals too.
So, I personally, do not see a reason why this should be ignored or not done in the very near future.
& my reasons are simply because it is for the good of the chain and all stake holders.
It is more transparent, it helps build awareness and responsibility and it ensures that there are no misleading figures out there which may affect stake holders when casting votes.
I leave it up to those who are against vote decay/timers to state their arguments for their positions on this topic, if they wish to do so.
Yours truly
