Quote from: Otoh on December 18, 2015, 02:01:37 PM

]

So what would you like me to do, divest many of my masternodes to others, not vote on proposals, if so then you should be happy as this is exactly what I have done, I voted only on the first vote to bring in MN voting and have voted on not a single one since, not Ewan's proposals or anyone's, now I will likely be rightly criticized for not voting and selling MNs P2P rather than leaving ppl to buy them on the open market, but you can't please everybody.

This is completely unacceptable Otoh! It is your duty to vote Tongue

Joking aside - I can't understand what all the fuss is about frankly. As masternode owners we've already voted.. with our wallets. If we didn't have confidence in the way the project is progressing we'd vote again with our wallets by divesting ourselves from the project. Therefore, regardless of the intricacies of DGBB, the key metric for the overall health of the project is the total number of masternodes on the network, which continues its relentless march upwards.

The DGBB solution is designed to be a practical way of funding future development in a fair, open and accountable manner. To that end I think that it has been a success. Is it open to abuse? Potentially. However, we can say this about all systems where incentives are at play. This is just a fact of life and it's certainly no more open to abuse than a traditional corporate/government structures.

Fundamentally - if the DGBB system is abused then the masternode owners WILL do something about it, and likewise, if the system really is flawed (unlikely) then the results of this abuse will almost certainly present themselves in the masternode count as this is the ultimate veto against the project.

Walter