"User A has 1m Steem, casts 30 votes for witness, and wields 30M Steem influence over governance. User B has 100 Steem, casts 30 votes for witness, and wields 3000 Steem influence over governance. The difference between their hodlings is 999,900 Steem. The difference in the weight of their influence on governance however is 29,997,000 Steem."

This has always centralized Steem governance since witnesses were enabled. Stinc had the largest stake and therefore a compelling reason to implement this mechanism. However, the cryptic coordination of the largest stakeholders to implement an oligarchical consensus cabal has heretofore made voting Stinc's stake unnecessary - until it was sold to Tron.

It is this centralizing effect of 30x weighting of stake on governance that made the Stinc stake so dangerous, because that weighting prevented the smaller individually voted stakes from effecting the influence on governance their larger total stake represented. Because it is individually voted from many accounts, it actually influences governance less than the Stinc stake voted en masse.

This can easily be resolved by simply applying the time tested VP mechanism from ordinary voting to witness voting and setting depletion to 100% without recharge. This enables each Steem to influence governance once, and only once. User A has 999,900 more stake than User B, and would then have 999,900 more influence on governance, accurately weighting their stake on governance as a result.

However, both Sun and the historical consensus cabal benefit from 30x weighting of the largest stakes, and therefore neither wants to equalize the influence of stake on governance. In every mention of this problem heretofore those benefiting from this weighting have deflected, affected incomprehension, and dismissed discussion, thus maintaining their benefit from the mechanism by maintaining the status quo. Only now that the community sees the threat of centralization Sun's acquisition of the founder's stake represents has this issue become impossible to ignore, and actually better decentralizing influence on governance a possibility that threatens the oligarchy's extraction of the vast majority of Steem created through inflation.

I am extremely discouraged by my recent grasp of how thoroughly manipulation of the community - and of particular relevance personally, of me - has prevented greater decentralization of governance from being implemented, and the coordination that has been revealed between legacy consensus witnesses as a cabal with the largest stakeholders. The simplicity of applying VP to witness votes belies the duplicitous responses questioning the possibility of fixing the malignant weighting presently securing the consensus positions of legacy witnesses, and the flow of Steem created through inflation to the largest stakeholders it ensures.

The VP mechanism has four years of testing behind it already. There can be little question regarding it's operation and safety, yet whenever the solution is proposed consensus witnesses and relevant stakeholders retreat to puerile incompetence and make bizarre claims of complexity and unknown possibilities that might arise from applying VP to witness voting.

Overall, I am becoming convinced that a new chain that is fully distributed - not beginning with dramatically weighted influence from the outset - is the only possible solution to the dilemma that has now come to a head on Steem. I hope @theoretical is both clever enough to understand this, and intent enough on real decentralization, to undertake to implement both equitable initial distribution of influence and functional mechanisms to maintain nominal distribution in the new development they are beginning.

As a long time consensus witness, you may be aware of how these issues have impacted governance to a far greater degree than my rudimentary grasp, and I would appreciate any comment you might be willing to provide.

I appreciate that obligations and long standing commitments may prevent forthright discussion that might compromise your support from essential stakeholders for your position in the consensus. I do not intend my comments to be misconstrued as suggesting improper influence on you personally, despite appearances. I also very much appreciate your hard work on behalf of the Steem community, this transcript being but the latest example.

Thanks!