I still believe that it should be one member one vote, having more coins should not give you more power.
This would make WC a better coin for investors, not worrying someone can buy his way in.
I don't really agree. I feel that the weight of your vote should directly correlate to the power your vote holds.
People with more WC will have a far larger vested interest for voting for things that benefit WC.
If someone is willing to buy his way in, he will be pushing the price of WC up and will buy expensive coins. He is unlikely to vote for anything that can destroy his investment.
On paper, yes it does make sense, but in reality, this practice can be use to control and destroy it. it's impossible to have a perfect solution.
But I have an idea to build on the previous mention by Malbee, not just implement a scaled structure but also a cap.
1 - 500K = 1 vote
500k - 5M = 2 votes
5M + = 3 votes
These numbers are just an example, but capping the maximum amount of vote would help the richer have more power without crippling and voiding the vote of lower holders.
This would be a better compromise over the possibility of unlimited voting power of richer people.