我倒是比较相信BM不会这么没底线。
现在BM控制9.5%的投票（自己5%左右，别人支持5%左右），占活跃票总量21%的50%不到，他也就是投进了自己5个init理事，也没见把11个理事都占满。实际上他再多投几个init或者随便谁，巨蟹就不在名单里了。

不过呢，另外有几个理事比如mindphlux (1.5.11)    bunkerchainlabs-com (1.5.20)基本上是无条件支持BM的，还有fav，xeroc等几个proxy，在交易所没投票的情况下，BM还是占优势。

大家要把“去中心化”这几个字搞清楚：
1、去中心化指的是网络安全，就是区块链网络的不可更改，不可重复，这个现在没有问题，见证人机制运转很好；
2、投票权可以变更的参数并不涉及到变更网络去中心化的特性，投票权等同于股权，有控股股东的情况也很正常，未必就一定要股权非常分散才对项目发展好，这个不会对网络安全造成影响，也就不存在所谓的中心化问题。
综上所述，交易所就如同股权代管受托机构，投票妥妥的，甚至可以代理行使控股股东权利。

If a company has a billion shareholders each with one share and they all vote for the same people, is it not still decentralized (because they had the option to vote differently)?

If all but one of those shareholders chooses not to vote, thereby allowing the last shareholder to select the committee all by herself, is it not still decentralized (because they still had the option to vote)?

As long as each share has the decentralized option to vote, that's all we can and should do about decentralization.

To do otherwise is to disenfranchise those who choose to vote in an attempt to redistribute their legitimately owned decision power onto others who don't want or deserve it.

Forced decentralization is its own form of tyranny.

Anyway, before we declare 1% and 300 BTS as "really scary" we should do a basic statistical analysis (i.e. find out the mean value and its deviation) and thus estimate the economic impact of those values across different segments of our users.

But please do not drag this proposal into yet another transfer fee battle.
The whole point of this proposal is to make transfers below $5 viable while preserving the economic foundation of the referral program.
If you don't like it, you will be able to keep TCNY and TUSD out of it - this whole thing is optional for the issuer.