Is there a risk for Tezos to fall under centralization and control by large bakers?

[MavropaliasG]

I don’t know what point you’re trying to prove here, but I can say for sure you have derailed the discussion to a completely different direction as to my original intent and introduced ideas that I never mentioned or implied, simply because maybe you want to talk about them. Please start your own post and discuss about these, don’t hijack other people’s posts with irrelevant things.

Just to restate my opinion, I do understand bakers get rewards for the work they put in for securing the network, and even though we delegate our tokens to them, they SHOULD get rewards and charge fees for their service. I am not in any way interested in making bakers earn less, in fact, I agree that they should earn profits, and have vested financial interests, because that would incentivize them to secure the blockchain. Nowhere did I talk about ‘regulating the economy’.

However, earning financial rewards is different from voting in real life, but in Tezos it’s similar (more tokens = more voting power).

I never talked about “we need equality BS”. What does equality have to do with anything? I am saying that we need to have a way to make sure that people who basically vote FOR you, should be transparent about how they vote, and to have a way to prevent big players from voting against the interests of the community, and the community not being able to fight back due a) to simply not having as much voting power, or b) people just delegating to earn rewards and not caring what their baker does with that.

@perfectparadox pointed out that the biggest problem would be misinformation. That is why I thought to have easier and more ‘in your face’ information on how your baker voted, if you may. Transparency can prevent misuse of power. We had already come to a conclusion on this topic before you barged in and started writing about socialism and proletariats.

Also, saying that my ideas have the potential to turn into ‘socialistic BS’ is such a flawed way of thinking. Any idea can turn into anything, but is that what the person said? What about talking about the potential of renewable source of energy, am I implying I want to starve the families of workers on oil rigs? You seriously need to do some reading on the strawman fallacy and non sequitur, because you are using these fallacies to a level I’ve never seen before.

[tezoswakenbake]

I ain’t hijacking your thread, the thread turned into other direction, and i wanted to go back to this:

Since a lot of people delegate their coins to bakers to earn rewards, then bakers get more tokens over time and grow bigger, faster than the delegators. Isn’t this going to create centralization problems in the future

Yes your suggestion is cool, that wallets show the vote record of every baker, but why can’t we go back and forward? It’s a forum dude.

Let us ask again this question, would bakers earning more tokens than delegators is a bad thing because it could create centralization?

Just to restate my opinion, I do understand bakers get rewards for the work they put in for securing the network, and even though we delegate our tokens to them, they SHOULD get rewards and charge fees for their service. I am not in any way interested in making bakers earn less, in fact, I agree that they should earn profits, and have vested financial interests, because that would incentivize them to secure the blockchain.

Good, good, then you would understand this would not create centralization, quite the opposite, it will incentivize more delegators to run more baking nodes instead of delegating.

I never talked about “we need equality BS”. What does equality have to do with anything?

Yes, you did not mention equality, but your first argument might lead people to think of it.

and to have a way to prevent big players from voting against the interests of the community

Prevent bakers to vote against their own interest? How you want to prevent big bakers to vote against their own interest? The only way is that delegators redelegate their XTZ voluntarily to another baker to effectively reduce big bakers voting weight, OR if delegators associate to form a baker DAO and represent themselves in the governance system. Bakers always vote for their own interest, this is totally fine, they are heavily invested into it, and by voting for their own interest will actually make the chain grow and improve, why would they vote for something that could make their investment decrease in price?