you seem to not see that you just scaled all votes by dividing through saturation.
If all pools only get at most 1 vote if they are fully saturated, there can be at most 25 billion staked ADA / 70 million ADA saturation = 357 votes in total. 0.6 votes are a lot in that setting. They are in the same range than the millions of ADA votes of a total of billions of ADA votes that you found so scandalous to begin with.
If 0.6 of 357 votes are “minimal” then 63 million votes of 25 billion votes are also minimal and we can just stop talking about whales being a problem at all.
… and they judge it much too favourable at least on the verifiability property. It is all “Trust us, bro!” up to now. We cannot independently verify the votes. We cannot even see them. Just the registration of voting keys is on the Cardano chain. Everything else is behind closed doors.
OK, let me pick someone less controversial. How about DCSpark or Sebastian? Clearly he will have more Ada than anyone discussing this thread. He is successful and I think provides value to Cardano.
@jcamp, is it your intention to limit the voting power of whales like this?
Thinking a few more steps along: What are you going to achieve? If you were to succeed in making things unfair for these whales you seem to hate, what will they do? What if they figure that they are the ones creating all the value and decide to fork the chain to have a fair (in their eyes at least) version without your whale vote limiting “feature”?
Which version are you then going to join:
The version with all the entrepreneurial whales creating stuff and doing things?
Or the version with all the rent-seeking minnows debating about how they can limit the voting power of the bigger minnows?
It does feel like it. I am not sure if anyone who is more mathematically savvy is interested. Thanks for sharing the link, I will definitely have fun reading it!
That’s a good point, but the proposal provides more dynamism for all participants as well as risks and inconveniencies for those who want to game the system. We don’t have such dynamism in a popular referendum.
Again, I’d like to emphasize that splitting a big wallet into 63,000 small ones just to gain some 0.000095 additional vote per wallet, does not appear to be worth the risk and inconvenience, at least to me.
Also, I just realized that we do now have tools such as the one developed by Xerberus to track fund movements. If these tools mature, we may be able to use that to analyze wallet splitting and, therefore, whale movement and maybe even be used in the calculation of the wallet decentralization metric.
Just to put it out there, I am not a whale-hater. I am simply providing an alternative mechanism for governance that will give more empowerment to small investors. A society can only have an efficient government if it has a strong middleclass. Blockchain infra is no different.
If a blockchain is truly decentralized, the likelihood of chain splitting is non-existent - although at MAV 20, Cardano does not appear to be that decentralized.
Which brings me to my other point that we need a different mechanism to improve decentralization. I’ve outlined a proposal here.
I’m no math wizard and these calculations are doing my head in.
Is this simply not an argument a matter of identity, the question is do we fight for anonymity or do we fight for the truth of identity, be you round, square, or whatever shape you want to imagine!
KYC, or stop pretending
All Cardano Holders should be part of the Cardano Identity System
Small mention that triggered a stance I have hence the apology. Doing a great job of maintaining your position, if the math works, all the power to you.