Does anyone agree/disagree?
Although I have expressed many times that 1024 was/is too high of maximum vote allowed and have recommended that people vote low all along... I have to admit/agree that it would not be a good idea for the devs to change the code at this point. Plus... HVC was doing fine even with the higher votes... maybe this is all due to the general Bear Market... nobody knows.
To be honest... I am in support of efforts such as a multipool. Marketing efforts would be welcomed too... but they take too much time.
But what happens in a couple on months when the reward per block drops to at most 8 HVC regardless of voting? Who will still mine at that point? How will the network survive? Even if there are still a few die-hard miners there will be massive security issues and the network won't be safe. It's not going to be long before the masses figure this out and realize HVC has no future due to faulty design and decentralized voting. What happens to the value of any HVC at that point? IMHO, this can't be avoided at present without a core change.
If the math is correct above then even at a 50 (super unlikely) average vote the reward per block will drop by a factor of 10 on the 1st day sustain phase. That is all but a death sentence, is it not?
Ideally the value of HVC would go up accordingly to offset the lower reward per blocks between now and sustain day, but there is going to be far to much uncertainty of the coin for this to happen. That only leaves two options does it not? Death or core change
If anyone can see any other options how this could play out where HVC comes out ok and survives without a change I'd love to hear your opinion how this could be.