Even with this enacted you cannot prevent multiple individuals from forming strategic voting blocks. These strategic voting blocks will always be present in Bitshares and everybody won't catch on to their existence.
Many blockchains are implementing stakeholder voting features, yet you pick out Bitshares to take the brunt of your FUD. Even Nxt, your crowned champion of a cryptocurrency has enabled a voting feature. As I said earlier, if someone forms strategic voting blocks to go against the will of other stakeholders, then that is a really stupid thing to do. The other stakeholders will catch on and sell their stake, hugely and negatively affecting the price per coin. It doesn't make much sense to form strategic voting blocks against the will of the community because of that.The voting implementation in NXT does NOT control who secures the network. It is only for posting polls like asking "Who has the longer nose? Stan Larimer? or Pinocchio?"
This is the inherit problem with DPoS verses PoS. With PoS, you actually have to own the stake to control the chain. With DPoS, you only have to convince others with stake to vote you into power to control the chain.
This is intended. In PoS and PoW, stakeholders are unable to choose who benefits from securing the blockchain. dPoS allows stakeholders to choose who profits from the act of securing the blockchain, that way the blockchain can hire employees. Whoever can provide the most value or do the most work for the stakeholders will win the job. This allows stakeholders to "hire employees" who do development, marketing, documentation, user support on the forums, web development, etc.Who secures the blockchain in a PoS system should be the currency holders. The motives of those who secure the chain should be aligned with the holders of the currency. Bitshares' DPoS breaks this notion, intentionally.
Also, who are you to decide what the "original intent" of crypto is or isn't? Technology is opinion and religious agnostic.
I'm going to make this really simple for you:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Genesis_block
Quote
The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks
All cryptocurrencies do not expose their holders the same systematic risk that exists in Bitshares' bitAssets. That's right Bitshares simply does not lose over 50% of its value in one day. It loses 34% of its value in one day like we just saw a few days ago.
You are being hypocritical here. Many cryptocurrencies have introduced features which have inherent "systematic risks", yet you are not attacking them. Even the cryptocurrency you champion, Nxt has introduce systematic risks in a number of features it has implemented. You couldn't be more hypocritical by pushing this point. Nxt's asset exchange, monetary system, and marketplace expose their shareholders to systematic risks. I see very little to no caveats published along with Nxt's marketing of said features. Bitshares must put a caveat on any and all features that expose shareholders to risk, but Nxt (and all other cryptocurrencies that have similar features that you are not trolling) do not have to make sure these caveats are know. This is just supposed to be common sense, right? Nxt users are so much smarter than Bitshares users, so they automatically know the risks involved and no caveats are needed, right? right?
Assets listed on NXT's asset exchange are of course susceptible to the same scenario occurring from a falling NXT marketcap. The difference is that NXT assets holders are not contractually entitled to a guaranteed return. THERE IS NO PEG WITH NXT ASSETS. Bitshares is going around claiming to have developed a safe, pegged asset market when it is clearly not safe and not pegged.