While we are talking about game theory, why is the obvious counter strategy not to simply split your extremely large stake into two extremely large stakes, doubling the number of witness votes that you can use backed by what is effectively still orders of magnitude more SP than people even a little bit down the curve?

When I was doing visualizations of SP distribution throughout the Steemit user population, the power curve was incredibly steep. Hyper-logarithmic. With the relative ease of setting up new accounts and staking them now, what would keep accounts with large stake from simply splitting into a group of nodes of smaller stake but coordinated voting?

And then we would end up exactly the same place we are now, but everybody's weight of SP would be spread just a little bit thinner.

The problem with systems like this is that they are trying to imagine that things could work differently than they are given very much the same axioms. The problem is not "insufficient democracy." The problem is "Proof of Stake." The entirety of the blockchain and the way that the system allocates resources is based purely and completely on who has the most stake lodged in the database, and not only is it far better (from the perspective of the algorithm and the creators) for you to have acquired that stake by purchasing it with fiat currency and then simply keeping it unmoving in the blockchain, it is the recommended methodology. Publicly!

This is the problem. This is the very core of the problem. It is also this strong selling point of the platform.

"All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others."