Fwiw I agree with @boxalex, I had actually forgotten that I even proposed the idea because I wrote it off after early commenters hammered home the downsides.
I don’t think this is worth much. To use an absurd and extreme example, if I tell you that I want to drive my motorcycle over a cliff, and you say, “But you’ll die,” and I say, “I acknowledge that your criticism is valid,” and then still drive over the cliff, have we accomplished anything? Maybe something, but it wasn’t very useful.
Likewise, if I said, “No I won’t, because I’ll sprout wings!” — well, the mere fact of having offered an explanation doesn’t make it convincing. It feels like being gaslit to push back and have the counterparty act puzzled. “But I told you that I’m going to sprout wings!” Yeah, tell me that however many times you want, I’m not gonna believe it simply because you said so.
Explain a mechanism that makes sense. Provide your reasoning. There is no substitute for convincingly demonstrating good judgment. Like, there just isn’t. Persuasion is really important, and how attempts at persuasion are conducted tells you a lot.
I’m not even against using coinholder voting as a signal (perhaps obvious from OP in this thread). My position on the staked poll at this point in time is “it’s your damn motorcycle, go ahead if you insist” but I hate being brushed off by people who pretend they aren’t brushing you off.
How many times did @sarang ask a direct, straightforward question and get vague non-answers? He had to ask how many times, with others echoing the question, before getting a straight answer?