<>
I'm gonna try ELY5:
I own a house (my part of the economy), one of the many houses in Bitcoinia (the economy), which, in turn, is conveniently situated below a levee.
Mayoral election coming up. Mayor A wants to nuke the levee (is Socialist, presumably), mayor B doesn't (is Ron Paul).
I ask you: How do I vote for Ron Paul, I don't want to live with communists, underwater!
You reply: Vote with your wallet. If you don't like the Mayor who gets elected, sell the house.
I sputter: Buh...but wouldn't that be too late? My underwater house won't be worth shit, because in a socialist town! I don't want to watch the elections and leave if the commies win, I want a voice. How do I vote? You said I could, because economic majority. But clearly you didn't mean me, I could only react, sell my house when it becomes aquatic.
You: The market will take care of it, invisible hand.
@oda.krell: feel free to field this.
Ok, so you say you want another mechanism for decision making, so that the decision process is proactive instead of responding to changes that have occurred. The question is whether such a thing is possible without being very gameable (I have no clue).
But Smooth is completely right that holding affects the market, so you shouldn't debate him on that.
Of course hodling affects the market -- if hodlers try to dump their hodlings, the price would crash. Not disputing that, also not smooth's claim.
He claims "Whatever it is that the economic majority thinks is more important [that's what happens]."