RE: Why I have removed my witness vote for @ura-soul, and stand against @jerrybanfield ‘s budget proposal.
When I see someone (even if he was at one point) not in the top 20, calling for that bracket to give up/donate/tax, whatever you prefer to call it, half of their 'income', to fund his idea, regardless of the proposed benefits, it is immoral in my mind. Unless there is 100% consensus among all top 20 witnesses, I don't see it as being a voluntary interaction.
Their income is only their income because of the rules of the system which are themselves open to change. The rules are effectively decided by the witnesses themselves since they are changed via the hardfork process and the witnesses decide which hardforks get chosen. I think you have misunderstood the mechanics here. AFAIK, the current percentage allotted to the witnesses was defined by @dan and @ned during the project's conception - it is not a god given right.
no-one can force anything on the top 20 witnesses and effectively, it would only occur through their own voluntary acceptance of it.
it seems you are assuming that jerry, i or anyone else has powers that we do not have.
You're probably right. Having lived under the boot for 30 years, I need to understand and recognize that Steemit isn't a dictatorship. Or even a democracy. So even though people may come up with plans for HF's (which I may or may not agree with), they can't just slap an approved sticker on it and away we go.
This is such an interesting time to be alive and see first hand how this all plays out. Hope you have a great day and it is my hope that we can cordially chat about more issues in the future. Peace man.
OK, no problem. There is a lack of good and available documentation here that makes clear how these processes work. Even as a witness I don't know of a good resource for them.
Wishing you well!