We know because virtually all elections in any sphere have poor turnouts - and this is when people don't have to pay to vote. It also unfair to class non-voters as "lazy", they could just not have much Lisk, - this will get worse if Lisk's value lifts to any significant degree. I am trying to find some stats from the Crypti voting, which I intend to use how such a voting mechanism is open to simple, cheap manipulation. So, if anyone knows where I might find this, I'd be grateful.


It's not. Lots of people have admitted this is a potential problem.

This is a reply from Max on the Lisk forum:

"In my opinion people shouldn't concentrate so much on the forging, delegates and DPoS part of Lisk. It's only "a means to an end". They should concentrate on the dapp part. "

This is, as far as I know, the first statement by Max on this subject and he seems to be telling us to not worry our pretty little heads about it - I'm doing my best not to read something into this, but it's getting more difficult not to.  I would have thought consideration of all aspects of Lisk was paramount - it's not like there's a shortage of people to spend time on it. It's also the only contribution I can realistically provide, I'm not a coder, not much of a techie, but I have had an interest in voting and election systems for some time, I do know a little about it.

I'm not sure that Lisk can be called decentralised when it relies on an effectively closed group of 101 delegates.

Rohit Khare's definition of decentralisation states:

"An open decentralized system is one in which the entry of peers is not regulated. Any peer can enter or leave the system at any time."

Does Lisk meet this definition?

I have invested a lot (for me) of BTC into this, so I am not fudding, I want it to work, but this issue is only going to get more pronounced as more money and trolls come into the scene - it needs sorting, one way or another.

I was originally fairly keen on the lottery idea, but my thoughts are changing. It seems to me that if any voting system is going to give advantage to the already well-off, why not just auction the delegate positions? I don't see that there is much difference between an auction and the DPOS voting system as it stands, except it would be more honest. It would also remain true to the ideals of "the market".