Observation about DNS stake

[kokojie]

that would resolve this problem of the biggest stakeholder controlling all 101 delegates.

that only holds true if the biggest stakeholder has 51%+ shares ..

otherwise it holds only true if people are to lazy to vote

I think it's easily possible to do so without 51%, for example if I have 15% of stake in BTSX, I could obtain 50%+ of the BTSX delegate seats right now.

Sure, other stake holders could vote someone else, but they have to be extremely organized and all vote for the same set of delegates to out compete my stake. Otherwise they have no chance against my stake. It's not laziness, they could all voted 101 delegates, but just different sets of 101 delegates.

So you're saying all the rest of the stake wouldn't able to agree to any delegate with even 15% approval, so the entity that controls the DAC is the one with 15% stake. Why should the rest get control if they do not have anything specific way of operating the DAC that they want?

ok I see what you are saying, basically it's similar to how a regular corporation would work, the shareholders that are most organized, is able to obtain control of the corporation.

[toast]

Without approval voting and using your assumptions, you'd end up with the 15% stake controlling a majority of delegates anyway.

[toast]

that would resolve this problem of the biggest stakeholder controlling all 101 delegates.

that only holds true if the biggest stakeholder has 51%+ shares ..

otherwise it holds only true if people are to lazy to vote

I think it's easily possible to do so without 51%, for example if I have 15% of stake in BTSX, I could obtain 50%+ of the BTSX delegate seats right now.

Sure, other stake holders could vote someone else, but they have to be extremely organized and all vote for the same set of delegates to out compete my stake. Otherwise they have no chance against my stake. It's not laziness, they could all voted 101 delegates, but just different sets of 101 delegates.

So you're saying all the rest of the stake wouldn't able to agree to any delegate with even 15% approval, so the entity that controls the DAC is the one with 15% stake. Why should the rest get control if they do not have anything specific way of operating the DAC that they want?

[kokojie]

that would resolve this problem of the biggest stakeholder controlling all 101 delegates.

that only holds true if the biggest stakeholder has 51%+ shares ..

otherwise it holds only true if people are to lazy to vote

I think it's easily possible to do so without 51%, for example if I have 15% of stake in BTSX, I could obtain 50%+ of the BTSX delegate seats right now.

Sure, other stake holders could vote someone else, but they have to be extremely organized and all vote for the same set of delegates to out compete my stake. Otherwise they have no chance against my stake. It's not laziness, they could all voted 101 delegates, but just different sets of 101 delegates.

[Riverhead]

I am very interested to see how proper Delegate pay has the potential to change the game. The delegates that are active in BitShares X should definitively campaign on DNS as well. Many of us will vote on Delegates based on their reputation across multiple DACs.. To have no inflation and no premine in BitShares X was a move that was made possible by the AGS fund, and has left most Delegates waiting for a brighter future with only a few brave souls investing properly in infrastructure for the BitShares ecosystem. This will change rapidly once Delegate income goes up an order of magnitude (either by BitShares X going for a few percent inflation, or one of the DACs going up 10x).

I'm thinking of created riverhead-del-server-1 for DNS with a 1% pay to compensate for chain/seed/delegate vps nodes and hopefully soon a faucet. My hope is that it will also help cover some of the cost of my 5% BitSharesX delegate. Once BTSX takes off and the 5% is meaningful I can set the DNS one to 0% again.

[toast]

I never understood the reason why not 1 share 1 vote in the original BitsharesX system, that would resolve this problem of the biggest stakeholder controlling all 101 delegates.

It is still like this, just 1 vote in 101 distinct elections

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[CLains]

I am very interested to see how proper Delegate pay has the potential to change the game. The delegates that are active in BitShares X should definitively campaign on DNS as well. Many of us will vote on Delegates based on their reputation across multiple DACs.. To have no inflation and no premine in BitShares X was a move that was made possible by the AGS fund, and has left most Delegates waiting for a brighter future with only a few brave souls investing properly in infrastructure for the BitShares ecosystem. This will change rapidly once Delegate income goes up an order of magnitude (either by BitShares X going for a few percent inflation, or one of the DACs going up 10x).

[xeroc]

that would resolve this problem of the biggest stakeholder controlling all 101 delegates.

that only holds true if the biggest stakeholder has 51%+ shares ..

otherwise it holds only true if people are to lazy to vote

[kokojie]

I never understood the reason why not 1 share 1 vote in the original BitsharesX system, that would resolve this problem of the biggest stakeholder controlling all 101 delegates.

[ripplexiaoshan]

helloworld1 is also among the top 101, but it's a result of good reputation. They obey the rules and they are big fan of DNS, I don't see why they are dangerous to the network.  If one day, some very strange delegates jump in top 101, then we need to take care of it. :)

[Harvey]

as far as I know, 3I might be the only one has more than 1% of DNS. These close-4-percent-delegates（sun,lion,...） get support from many shareholders. None of them is the big shark.

[麥可貓]

Nice to see that your high approval rating is simply a result of you doing a good job! :)

The voting history for their delegates confirm this, as the "big" votes are composed of many different voting transactions with stakes ranging from ~100k to ~19mill. Other than toast's votes no other votes exceed 19million, as you can see at the bottom here:

http://dns.bitsharesblocks.com/delegates/delegate?name=x1-sun

Thank you!

[svk]

Nice to see that your high approval rating is simply a result of you doing a good job! :)

The voting history for their delegates confirm this, as the "big" votes are composed of many different voting transactions with stakes ranging from ~100k to ~19mill. Other than toast's votes no other votes exceed 19million, as you can see at the bottom here:

http://dns.bitsharesblocks.com/delegates/delegate?name=x1-sun

[当年很厉害]

 :'( :'( :'(

[麥可貓]

Actually we are not big stake holders,  therefore we don't have the ability to control the network. For situations like this and possibly more in the future,  I think we could implement some command to observe the ditribution of votes of designated delegates,  so that  big shareholders trying to control multiple delegates can be distinguished.