Interesting comments, but I do find it hard to take stonehedge "that" seriously after what he did with his DRK and although he may well have enjoyed his reflection time, I think its a bit rich to start spouting all that once he is (against what he wanted) left with no coins...
DASH is going the right way, its one year old and lots more things will happen, the way some people talk its as though this all has to be decided by tomorrow...
Oh, I wouldn't disregard his commitment to DASH. I believe Stonehedge has at least 1 masternode and is very much still a part of the DASH team. Just because he sees issues, doesn't mean he's not part of the team. In fact, we need people to speak up about what isn't sitting right with then, hashing it out until we find the focal point of the issue, and clean it up, or resolve the problem/issue.
For me, I totally missed the discussion on that voting mechanism. What brought it about? why only masternodes? I think I was asleep at the wheel. I'm sure the idea was for marketing direction consensus, which seems benign, but could this become something more controlling? Like I said, I didn't follow that conversation, and now it's here??
-or else I totally forgot. I don't recall-
The masternode voting system isn't binding in any way. AFAIK, it's just a way for the developers to submit questions and get the point-of-view of masternode operators. Things like "should we build Tor on top of masternodes" would be something that devs might be interested in hearing first from the masternode owners.
That's just the point. NOTHING in crypto is binding. If you don't like it, fork it. If enough people agree with you, then you have created a new network.
P.S. Half the holders of DASH are masternode owners. If you want to get an opinion from the community and you want to exclude forum sock puppets, asking for a masternode vote is a good start. Not an end-all-be-all, but a start.