https://faucet.bitshares.org/refscoreboard

@triox: please read the OP again. Your post kind of doesn't fit here ..

The original intent of IP is to allow creators/inventors

It’s important to understand the origins of these concepts. As law professor Eric E. Johnson notes, “The monopolies now understood as copyrights and patents were originally created by royal decree, bestowed as a form of favoritism and control. As the power of the monarchy dwindled, these chartered monopolies were reformed, and essentially by default, they wound up in the hands of authors and inventors.”

Patents were exclusive monopolies to sell various goods and services for a limited time. The word patent, historian Patricia Seed explains, comes from the Latin patente, signifying open letters. Patents were “open letters” granted by the monarch authorizing someone to do something—to be, say, the only person to sell a certain good in a certain area, to homestead land in the New World on behalf of the crown, and so on.

It’s interesting that many defenders of IP—such as patent lawyers and even some libertarians—get indignant if you call patents or copyright a monopoly. “It’s not a monopoly; it’s a property right,” they say. “If it’s a monopoly then your use of your car is a monopoly.” But patents are State grants of monopoly privilege. One of the first patent statutes was England’s Statute of Monopolies of 1624, a good example of truth in labeling.

Granting patents was a way for the State to raise money without having to impose a tax. Dispensing them also helped secure the loyalty of favorites. The patentee in return received protection from competition. This was great for the State and the patentee but not for competition or the consumer.

What about copyright? The roots literally lie in censorship. It was easy for State and church to control thought by controlling the scribes, but then the printing press came along, and the authorities worried that they couldn’t control official thought as easily. So Queen Mary created the Stationer’s Company in 1557, with the exclusive franchise over book publishing, to control the press and what information the people could access. When the charter of the Stationer’s Company expired, the publishers lobbied for an extension, but in the Statute of Anne (1710) Parliament gave copyright to authors instead. Authors liked this because it freed their works from State control. Nowadays they use copyright much as the State originally did: to censor and ban books. (More below.)

Quote from: triox on May 12, 2015, 04:29:33 am

Quote from: bytemaster on May 11, 2015, 10:33:58 pm

The number of Witnesses and Delegates is directly voted upon by the stakeholders.    Each stakeholder must vote for at least as many Witnesses and Delegates as they believe the system should have.   The number of witnesses/delegates is defined such that at least 50% of voting shareholders believe there is sufficient decentralization. 

Is this a good moment to reintroduce the idea of partial "witness" randomization?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15015

All that does is increase costs.  Under the proposed system there are no limits so if the stakeholders can muster enough votes you can have as many witnesses as desired, but the total COST of operating the system will be higher too and therefore profits will be lower.