I propose the following change: Increase the allowed votes per account from now 101 to 131 or 151 (exact number to be defined). This will remove the high cliff at 101 and therefore will allow standby delegates enter the top 101 much easier and quicker. This will increase the competition between delegates and motivate new delegates to fight for a spot in the top 101 which will lead to more decentralization. Additionally it gives the voters more choice and freedom, which will further increase the decentralization.
In my opinion this is much better than reducing it to only 1 vote.
See my reasons for that proposal in the following:
The reason why the top101 is so static, and why it's extremely difficult to enter that list, is because there is a huge "approval-cliff" at position 101. This cliff exists mainly because people have only 101 votes to vote for the active delegates. Because delegates on rank 1-101 share rewards, and standby delegates on rank 102 - XXX do not, a voter has the most personal benefit/income if he votes the top 101 ranks. The reason why almost everybody does not vote delegates on rank 102 - XXX is because to do so, they would have to remove a vote from top 101, which means that they will lose the rewards from this removed vote. This means basically that every vote they want to give a delegate on rank >101 will cost them money, what most are not willing to do. Additionally, because that cliff is so high, it takes a lot of time until someone on rank >101 can forge, which means that voters voting for standby delegates lose money during a long time. Voters have an incentive to wait until a delegate on rank 102 has almost the same weight as the one on rank 101, before changing their vote to lose the least possible amount of rewards. Problem is that every voter thinks the same (basically "the others should vote first, I'll follow then"), and nobody changes their votes.
What a change to 131 possible votes will do is the following:
People will still vote rank 1-101 to get maximum rewards. But now, they have additional 30 votes, which they can use for free. They can't earn more with them in the short term, but they can profit from it in the mid- to long-term. This means, those 30 votes can be used for any delegate they want from rank 102 - XXX. Some votes will be used for standby delegates who promise to share more than the current active delegates. Some votes will be used for standby delegates doing great work, like developing tools, organizing meetups, and so on.
If we assume that most voters will use those additional 30 votes, the approval weight on the ranks 102 - XXX will increase drastically, which basically removes the huge cliff at rank 101. If this cliff is removed, and let's say rank 102 - 110 have almost the same approval like rank 101, it will allow a lot more changes around rank 101 and standby delegates have a realistic chance to enter 101.
In the same time I'd like to suggest that we should allow more than only 33 votes per transactions. It should be increased to the maximum allowed votes, let's say 131, it will improve the usability for voters significantly.
Of course other improvements like "incite standby delegates", "floating point forging probability", etc... should be implemented, but they are not part of this proposal.
* top 101 will change more often, because there will be no 101 cliff anymore. The 1-vote-system would actually increase this 101 cliff even more.
* A higher chance for standby delegates to join top 101 will increase the competition between delegates and will motivate additional delegates to join the race for top 101. This increases the decentralization of the whole network.
* People have a lot more choice/freedom who to vote which increases the decentralization
* Pretty easy change (code wise).
* No drastic and unproven change from 101 to 1 votes is needed. The current votes could be kept and simply allow additional 30 votes from a specific date on.
* It makes it more simple to implement additional LIPs like incentivising standby delegates, because there is no cliff anymore at rank 101 and standby delegates are already involved in forging and fighting for rank 101.
* One can argue that it does not solve the issue with the groups. Well, the biggest issue with current system, the big 101-cliff, doesn't exist because of the groups. Even if current top 101 are all individuals with not a single group, even then all voters will only vote top 101, because this brings them the most possible rewards. It's independent from groups.
* One can argue that existing groups would add new members then. I think this will not be the case. Groups could add additional members already now, but they don't do it. The reasons for it are that they realize that the community would not tolerate it and it would be too much of a burden to ask all their voters to change the votes. Additionally the groups would hurt their existing group members by adding additional members.
* One can argue that groups will start demanding exclusive votes for them. I think this would not happen. They could do this already now but they don't do it. The voters would not accept it to give away their additional free votes. They have more incentive to use their additional votes to promote new highquality delegates into top 101.
* One can argue that it's more complicate to vote for 131 instead of for 101 or only 1 delegates. But this is not true if it is communicated well that 131 votes per account are possible, and if the process of voting is easy (like all 131 votes in one single transaction), Currently the way how to vote is the problem, because multiple transactions are needed to vote for 101 delegates.
Comparison between 131-votes vs 1-vote system:
* 131-votes will lower the 101-cliff, 1-vote will increase it
* 131-votes will increase the competition between delegates, 1-vote will reduce it
* 131-votes will increase decentralization by encouraging new delegates, 1-vote will decrease decentralization by spawning unknown sock accounts.
* 131-votes will keep the high quality and engagement of forging delegates, 1-vote will drastically reduce every community work on Lisk.
* 131-votes will increase the freedom of voters, 1-vote will reduce it
* 131-votes will give a more smooth transition from the current system, 1-vote will introduce a hard and unproven "cut".
Reasons why I am against the 1-vote-per-account proposal can be found here: