Evan you are not transparent enough. Having just read that you alone control the budget system and can pass all budgets with 10% of the vote bothers me. I'm sure you are a busy man but for this system to work and gain momentum you need to stop creating situations where you unfairly control portions of the system.
Otoh, I respect your right to make investments however the size of your investment in DASH gives you a lot of power. This is something I believe is holding potential investors back.
I'll add my lurker's two cents to this as well because I think emitkirby raises some important concerns.
The key point for me is not so much that large shareholders have more power, it's that voting is not public and we don't necessarily even know who the large shareholders are. It is less than ideal to have potentially large (possibly anonymous) holders or holder "cartels" shaping and passing initiatives in the name of public consent without that consent being completely observable.
- Firstly, (and I think this point as been raised, albeit inarticulately and in poor form, by resident trolls) people are likely going to be uncomfortable with the possibility of those holders directing funds to themselves through fake or misrepresented initiatives.
- Secondly, and to me the maybe the larger concern for true believers in Dash, is the possibility of large-holders actually voting against Dash's best interests in the future because they have an even larger hedge against it. So-called "empty voting" is a legitimate concern in the corporate world and should be a significant concern here.
Well, if that's what you want, you'll have to find it elsewhere because this is a privacy centric coin and any kind of exposure like that not only invades the holder's privacy, but may endanger them, depending on what country they live in. . .