No, it’s a bad idea (only those who hold tokens should vote, otherwise it can be manipulated), but what worries me the most is that, at this point, the community can’t oppose the team or a potential attack to influence the voting outcome. If Oliver pauses, he will have nearly 10 million votes. If Max pauses, he will also have around 10 million votes. The team has already paused and holds 6 million votes. Bingo, 3 people are enough to reach quorum and make decisions as they please. This is not a good situation. There are 30 million tokens locked in total, and if we subtract ~9.8 million, which belong to the team, Max, and Oliver (Max has 4.33 million, Oliver has 3.45 million, and the team holds 2 million), only 21 million tokens remain. Now tell me, what are the chances that 100% of the community will vote? Exactly, zero! This is just theoretical. As usual, not everyone will vote, and even half of them won’t pause, let alone lock their tokens for 2 years or even a year. So, it’s a clear loss. This is essentially a power grab, especially considering that some people won’t even read anything and will just vote like Max or the team. And that’s assuming @Przemer will protect the community’s interests, although it’s not certain that his opinion will not always align with the team’s. In that case, only four people would be needed to vote, and no one else would matter—whatever they want, they’ll decide. Overall, the situation is not looking good.
Let me reiterate, I’m not claiming that this will happen, nor do I want to slander anyone. I’m simply saying that the situation, both from a theoretical and practical standpoint, looks unhealthy. As someone who considers themselves a critical thinker, I’m just pointing out the gaps that need to be addressed to make the Lisk community even stronger and more decentralized.
P.S. Why do I often highlight @Przemer? Because he is the last stronghold of community protection AT THIS MOMENT (considering the current voting power distribution). This doesn’t mean that I will always be against the team (that would be crazy); I only oppose things where I genuinely believe change is needed. Accordingly, I might even align with the same position as the team and Max. The issue is that if Przemer votes the same way as the team, there won’t even be a theoretical chance left if the team decides to push through an initiative that’s unfavorable for the community or the ecosystem (and we are part of it). I hope my position is clear in this context. Thanks, everyone.
P.s.P.s. Here’s why @Przemer and I support the removal of the pause mechanism in its current form, or alternatively, for the pause to only serve as a stop to the countdown (reducing the lockup days), with Voting Power automatically increasing proportionally to the lockup time.