+1 we just have to accept that wealthier individuals are going to have more voting power. dont try to fight it.
No we don't. Why do we have to accept it?? It can just as easily be implemented without costs, please explain why does a vote has to be paid by the voters. (honest question, not trolling)
The only reason that makes sense to me is that we are actively trying to make people NOT vote
Yes thats exactly right. Not everyone should vote about everything. Someone who doesnt understand anything about the protocol should not be voting on issues relating to changes to the protocol. By making voting free people vote because they have no reason not to and you get ignorant voters voting on issues they know nothing about. by adding a cost people will only vote on something they actually care about which will tend to be things that they actually KNOW something about.
But then, if not everyone is supposed to vote, why have the vote, and the poll, and the community outreach in the first place?
If not everyone should vote, we don't need a voting mechanism at all.
You say:
By making voting free people vote because they have no reason not to.
But voting is about
engaging in a community[/b, taking part in the process. What you say is completely opposite by the idea of voting.