The scenario where a group of account holders owning the majority of lumens pool their votes and decide to capture all inflation seems at least theoretically possible. In that scenario, members of the voting pool effectively place themselves on the receiving end of a tax, or rent extraction scheme.

Is that not something we would want to avoid ?

I understand that equal weighted voting (one account one vote) might have issues, perhaps the rational for weighted voting is meant to address those issues, I'd be curious to know what the are. Perhaps equal voting weight opens the door to mass account creation for "purchasing voting power" ? Accounts have a cost to create, does that not provide sufficient safeguard ?

If some amount of "rewarding holders of lumens" is necessary, why not apply a moderating function to the weights, to ensure that there is "diminishing returns" on acquiring voting power from holding lumens ?

I understand that this touches the fundamental philosophical question of what backs the "value", or more precisely the purchasing power of lumens.

Lumens are credits for platform usage (holding accounts and paying transaction fees), that is sufficient to give "value" to lumens.



Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.