Discussion to change witness voting procedures

This is an open witness discussion topic article with a few suggestions for voting procedures.

Who has voted for witnesses? Do you know what they are, how they work? Good, as I am not going to go into that here, I just want to raise some questions.

There are 20 top witnesses who process the majority of blocks and take the majority of the witness rewards but, there is a centralization problem in this group as it is very difficult to shift the core players yet, they are stake-based voted positions. With the current setup, it is relatively easy to collude on votes and vote trade among witnesses who are also commonly, among the highest vested accounts on the platform. This is a risk.

So, what can be done?

Here are some ideas to discuss and some basic reasons behind them as I see it.

Reduce votes.

 
Currently, there are 20 top witness position yet, every account has 30 votes. This means the largest accounts can largely shore up the top 20 and protect it with the next 10 in the list as backups. No account should be able to vote upon all of the top witnesses plus their backups.

Reduce the vote count to 10.

This means that no one account can vote on all top 20 and will make vote collusion more difficult as it would require more accounts to be involved. It also has the added benefits of only needing to find 10 worthy witnesses, not 30. Most people are going to find it very difficult to keep track of 30 but, as we know, people are lazy and will largely vote on what is already high in the list. I am lazy too.

Having only 10 votes means that users can better align their votes with witnesses that they think are valuable and still use all of their voting power. The largest accounts on the platform definitely use their vests as they know the importance of the positioning.

EDIT: Apologies for the terrible image but this is just to visualise if the Freedom account only had 10 votes:

It means that the larger voters now have more chance to affect positions and the small voters (light blue) come much more heavily into play.

Increase top witness limits

 
Having a larger top witness count would have the added benefit of decentralizing the witnesses further and spread the witness rewards wider afield. If combined with less votes, the top 20 and 30 might change significantly in structure too as the smaller voter voices begin to matter much, much more. It is still stake based remember but, currently, the smaller voters have very little say if some section of the top voters are vote trading.

Maybe 30 top witness positions.

With 30 top witnesses and 10 votes, the list becomes much more dynamic but, those who are actually adding value to the platform are still likely to hold the top positions. In fact, those who do the most are likely to improve their positions as vote traders are knocked downward as their support bases are spread and less significant.

Time limit on votes

 
At the moment, there is no time limit on voting which means there is no reason to ever revote. For elected positions, complacency can seep in and it can quickly become a list of status quo position, thinking and steps forward. Remember that witnesses play a huge role in where the platform goes in the future.

6 month to a year time limit

Having a 6 month time limit doesn't necessarily make it difficult to revote the same but, it does make it necessary to vote otherwise the vested vote on the witness drops away. Currently, even on dead accounts (or dead people) their witness vote is for life. That is going to get very problematic in the future, if the witnesses become inactive but are still getting highly vested votes. It could be as simple as having a rollover vote button to revote for the same.

However, what is likely is that people will at least have a quick review of their voting every 6 months to see if the witnesses are holding up their responsibilities.

Why do this?

 
Having a more dynamic and less secure top witness list has many community benefits as it opens the witness positions up to more responsibility to actually perform and engage with their community. It means that those who are running various projects need to make sure the people are informed about them (this is actually in their best interest too).

It also means that it is much, much harder for vote trading and collusion which can essentially create a type of dictatorial authority at the top with very little chance to change governance.

Having less votes, more top slots and a forced revote period, reduces risks, encourages more witnesses, increases engagement, reduces collusion, increases the power of voters, reduces effort to find quality witnesses and means that the mega accounts can't choose all of who is there.

Even though this is a risk to some witnesses in the top 20, for many there, they are secure anyway as they actually offer the community value either through their services, developments or, in their community roles. The only ones who would rally have to be concerned are those who are vote trading and purchasing their positions.

I think in the long-term best interests of the platform, the witness list needs to become more dynamic and a larger section of the community should be able to have a real say in who is there.

This is up for discussion only and I hope that those who know much more about the way these things work will engage in the comments section too.

Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]