It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
by Harvey Meng, from EOS Union
I think that changing EOS from one vote per EOS to 30 votes per EOS is not a good decision.
It should ensure that the 21-node relationship is divided in order to achieve a greater degree of decentralization. After changing 30 votes per EOS, it is doomed that big EOS holders must unite to survive, that is, to vote each other.
For example, if A is a node, and holding 1 million EOS. Similarly, another node B, holding 1 million EOS as well. In order to increase the chance of selection, their best plan is not only to vote for themselves, and not to vote for anyone else. Instead, they should reach an agreement and vote only for themselves or their allies. If A and B are allies, A and B become 2 million votes per person, instantly surpassing other equally-sized nodes.
If the number of their allies reached 15, and only to vote with each other, do not invest in other than allies. Their winning percentage will be very high, and far more than other nodes.
At the same time, 15/21 is a very special number in the constitution of EOS. With more than 15 people agreeing, it means that they can change EOS code, constitution and blockchain data.
Maybe EOS was designed to prevent nodes from buying and selling votes, but 30 votes are really too much. Even if you can vote 2 or 3, it is better than 30 votes.
In this framework, only the alliance can win the election. Non-alignment means that the difficulty of the election will increase at a geometric multiple. Once alliances are established, decentralization will be even more distant.