Okay, thank for your answers. But ICON network is not decentralized yet, it is still their duty to make thing right you know. ICON Foundation is the one designed this game.
I agree that community should care also.
Now let’s move through your points.
I don’t understand your question. All P-Reps will not all represent the whole community, that is the point of the vote. 1 ICX = 1 vote, so ICONists (ICX holders) vote on who they want to run the network. Every ICONist has the right to vote. An ICONist with more ICX has the right to more votes, this has always been the understanding.
As I know, PReps are the ones decide on-chain proposals ( things like i_rep adjustments, etc…), therefore the decisive power is totally in their hand. And that power can be delegated, so PReps must represent the whole community right ?, at least majority of community.
In perfect scenario where all ICONists stake and vote, it may work as PReps cannot buy all ICX anyway. But with ICON, at this moment, there is only 30% ICX in circulating staked and voted. If some PReps are rich enough ( not so rich ), they can easily take over that power by buying their PRep positions and control top 22.
You cannot just expect/hope the network to be staked at over 70%, what if never ?
“Is it centralization of power?” – what is “it” in your question? Personally, I think 22 P-Reps, in general, is too centralized. I’ll be looking into alternative governance/economic models to propose to fix the current misbalance of rewards amongst nodes and increase the decentralization of the ICON Network. All P-Reps have the opportunity to propose solutions.
It is centralization of power in hand of Preps that hold a large amount of ICX. ICON voting rule is too naive and it does not take much effort to secure top 22.
I view Proof of Contribution, in regard to P-Rep voting, as the ethos of the ICON Republic, where ICON is trying to get ICX holders to understand the importance of voting for who they think will contribute the most. This has worked to an extent, as many people in chatrooms/twitter are currently expressing interest/opinions on ICON governance. Some people, however, just don’t care about the governance side of things and vote simply for rewards.
If so, we cannot call that “proof of contribution” when there is a lot of people do not care about contribution at all, what is the “proof” here ? Proof means strict rule and it must be coded into the system. We cannot just use it as a concept, an idea, or ethos, and expect things will work like that.
Additionally, a key part of DPoC is the Contribution Proposal System (EEPs/DBPs). I’m not going to flesh out this entire paper here, it’s available here.
“If it is not the most important metric for reward calculation” – I don’t understand why you are phrasing it this way, I know you think contribution is important, as do I. Also, what metric are you referring to? Contribution is a subjective thing, that’s why it’s up to each ICONist to vote for who they think will contribute the most. Many P-Reps have been stressing the importance of this since the beginning. Some people put in more effort to researching nodes than others, some people would rather just vote for themselves, some people vote simply for rewards.
I am just talking about the proof of contribution part in the role of PReps. If PReps do not need community-votes at all ( by buying ICX and get to top 22 ), the idea of contribution is pointless you know. It may work if all ICX are staked and overweight self-vote Preps, but what if it does not ? ICON network could be taken easily. It is exactly what happened to EOS.
And for your mention of EEP/DBP, if those proposal are still voted by exactly the same rule as PReps election, nothing change at all. After a quick look at the paper, I think it is still just token-weighted voting again.
Anyone with a lot of ICX can easily vote for their own proposals, unless all ICONists stake and vote. But I don’t think all ICONists will stake at all. It is just on theory. Let’s be real here please.
That said, Contribution Proposal Paper is still subjective to be improved, right ?
I shouldn’t need to tell you the point of on-chain governance, ICONviet is currently ranked #10 as a P-Rep. Do some research. Look at the Contribution Proposal System, look at Decred’s Politeia, look into Aragon and form an opinion on the importance of on-chain governance. There are many resources that the ICX Station team has researched that get us excited about on-chain/decentralized governance.
There are on-chain rules, you are incorrect. Here are a few examples:
…
It is my fault at exaggerating there is ZERO on-chain rules. Sorry for that. My point is at this moment, that system is not live yet, so all these discussions must be done off-chain, on this forum.
And by the way, I know what on-chain governance is, I were just wondering how it is implemented in ICON network.
My thought on this is to both lower P-Rep rewards and/or P-Reps with excess funds can use those funds to support those that they feel are contributing but are not being supported by other token holders. P-Reps are ICONists as well, so if you want to use your ICX to reward somebody for a contribution, then do it.
It could work, or not at all. What if majority of PReps do not want to do that ?, or what if majority of Preps are controlled by the same entity and it does not want to do that ? Again, potential risk of centralization and bad actors. Also please don’t say that community will kick them out, it only happen if nearly ALL ICONists stake their ICX and vote.
I also disagree that all nodes on other networks don’t contribute to the growth of their respective ecosystem. I provided a few examples below that I found doing very minimal research.
They do not contribute because of the proof of contribution they must do, they contribute just because they love the project and can be benefited from that ( potential more votes from supporters, but it is not the ultimate goal )
This is not the job of ICX Station, me, or the ICON Foundation. This is the job of P-Reps, collectively, to create clear rules/best practices and push for a more decentralized network. ICON has come out with the ICONstitution and a Governance Paper. Both of which are being fleshed out a little bit more and will be released in the coming weeks with a few updates.
Sorry, I do not aim to neither you nor ICX Station. It is ICON Foundation, they are the one started all of this. It is very important to kick start the interest of community and open source dev teams. Without it, it will be very hard for community to build project together.
There is no single mastermind at ICON. I disagree with your assertion that a mastermind is essential to the success of ICON. Min Kim and the Council Members are ultimate decision makers, but many people contribute to the vision of the ICON Project.
Okay, you can disagree on this. But please don’t forget the fact that all other successful projects out there, they ALL have great leaders 
( include Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron, EOS, Binance…)
Conclusion
TL;DR
If PPeps just need to buy ICX and secure top 22 without any contribution, and total amount of staked ICX is low, ICON network will be at risk of power-centralization in small groups of whales/PReps. The first thing we need is a better voting mechanism.
Anyway, I really appreciate your time and effort to give the reply, I hope we can make it all better.
Thank you.
