Introduce CEX in governance?

[xeroc]

I'd also prefer to have *more* proxies with medium voting power than fewer ones with huge voting power.

[Thul3]

Disagree

It is always bad that one single person control too much BTS, either the person is alt or me. as in a DPoS blockchain tokens means voting power.

If you need more voting power get more people activ.

I remember questioning over a year ago your centralised power and your answer was very clear to me.Get more BTS or holders supporting you (and noone disagreed with that).

I understand some people are unhappy with the 400k refund fund but thats not a reason to create a new voting system just because someone isn't voting in your favour (like reduce of MCR for bitcny).

Would alt be voting in your favour i highly doubt you would open that thread.
Also opening that thread where you lost that "centralised" power instead of opening when you had it gives it instantly a bad touch.

[sschiessl]

I don't think that pandora's box should be opened.

First question that comes to mind:
 - who educates the CEX in the governance of the bitshares blockchain
 - who educates the CEX in the proposals which might be very technical?
 - who will be lobbying in terms of what to vote for and what not?

[binggo]

GOOD!

The voting power must be balance.

[bitcrab]

It is always bad that one single person control too much BTS, either the person is alt or me. as in a DPoS blockchain tokens means voting power.

Obviously, the current voting power distribution in top proxies is out of balance, the governance is no longer as healthy as we have expected.



I am considering to introduce some CEX into the governance of BTS, as shown above, generally top proxies and top CEXs own comparative voting power, introducing more voting power can help to balance the current power whale and help to make the governance more healthy.

Thoughts?