But doesn't that also lead to cartels?
A large stake-holder just needs to fragment their holdings into more and more pools?
How do they overcome that?
RE: Dependencies are more important than decentralisation
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Dependencies are more important than decentralisation
They can fragment their holdings, but the different admins of the different stake pools may vote for different projects ... and they don't really depend on the stakes of certain stake holders because anyway their pools normally won't surpass a certain size ...
I don't say one couldn't circumvent these hurdles at all, but at least it's an interesting try, isn't it?
I'll have to dig up sources, but I do recall members complaining that Cardano had been over-run by cartels very quickly. Not sure what the feeling is now.
Using the language of Blurt, and looking towards Blurt2, if witness voters are paid a proportion of witness earnings, then the formula for that should be such that per-VP income should come down as the VP-votes increase, thereby making it more lucrative to also vote for those lower down the witness ladder.
However, for that to work it will need a different algo that selects witnesses for each block-cycle.
As always, feedback loops are necessary to avoid convergence towards centralisation.
Thanks for your input - will read the article link.
Ah, sorry to say, but that link is not really so detailed ...