ya, there are always people that like to live under the rule of a dictator, because he think the dictator is the wisest people he ever met.
but humankind finally select democracy, not because they cannot find wise people to be the ruler, but because they come to understand that unrestricted right will always lead to disaster.
can anyone prove that each time the elected US President is always relied person? no one can prove, but few US people think US need to go back to monarchy, like north Korea. no need to explain.
Democracy in a country is a totally different thing than a democracy in a DAC. In a country
everybody has a one vote and in a DAC
every share has a one vote. So it is a build-in feature in DAC that voting power can be centralized – just like in any other company.
Also, there are lots of different governance models besides democracy and dictatorship. There has been lots of good critique of democracy, like Bryan Caplan's book
The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies which explains why democracy usually results in disastrous politics. Also look
Eric X. Li: A tale of two political systems.
DAC is not compatible with dictator, we built committee in order to push the decentralization, not to put it under one people's control, I think this is easy to understand.
it's ok for you to trust BM mostly, you can support him by voting, but this is not the consensus of the whole community. the community need a mechanism to avoid dictatorship.
The point of DAC is not decentralization, the point is to make profits. To take care of the profitability we need somebody to make good decisions on blockchain parameters. This is what committee is for. It is not very reasonable to do decentralization just because decentralization. You have to always justify it.
If you think we need more decentralization, you have to explain how it will exactly help us make more money.
As I said, I think more imporant is to elect high quality committee members. We need people who really understand how the system works so they can make wise decisions. When our blockchain is finetuned to be so good as it can be, we will be able to make lots of money.
When we are going to make fundamental changes to blockchain governance, you really need to analyze it fully. You can't just say "no need to explain" or "I think this is easy to understand". You have to explain the mechanism for step by step how this new change will result our blockchain to be better, and as a result of that, will make us more money.
Also, isn't the voting mechamism for witnesses same as it is for committee? If so, then we would have to also prevent shareholders for voting more than three witnesses.