Hey there, @tobetada! It's very cool to see that you participated in the POB community vote! For a proposal to get ratified, it has to garner at least fifty percent of the staked POB according to the current governance protocol. Such a protocol may need reconsideration.

For example, everyone in a nation-State has a stake in the future of their country. However, for whatever reasons, there is hardly ever a stunning turnout rate. The expectation of getting fifty percent of the stakeholders to vote might be damn near impossible. And I think this is why voting mechanics in some countries go with the higher number to one degree or another.

A couple of other points on your comment is that I believe muting stake prevents a rogue stakeholder from voting up or down posts with their POB tokens. I do not think that it cancels, hides, or prevents them from posting or earning POB's, but I'm not one hundred percent certain. In that sense, I don't think the idea is supposed to censor someone's freedom of speech.

You make a fine point about who gets to decide, and I'd like to think that job should be a pretty laid-back one. I think most people on HIVE don't engage in malicious downvoting. I also think it's safe to say that it's in the community leader's best interest to review any such stake-mutings on a case-by-case basis. Either that or install someone trusted.

Thanks for stopping by and for sharing your thoughts on the matter, @tobetada! I hope to see it work out. I'd like to see many more communities that experiment with different styles of governance. Perhaps one day, the right one will get discovered, and HIVE can emulate its success!