Mcfarhats proposal was funded again becaus eof a single big witness vote

I am traveling so I will just avoid a huge wall of txt.

Last week Mcfarhat had been defunded, after a few other projects were defunded slowly over time. Then a witness that was supporting the return proposal removed their support, dropping the threshold by over 1 million HP. Worse, without posting or justifying it publicly. This sounds bad to outsiders and I know a few community memebers contacted me frustrated by how a single person can change its mind to favor its friends.

This is the exact type of two classes of citizens Hive has that I say scare investors. People campaign, people power up and big witnesses undo it all with a single click. The two classes, one has to grab pitchforks and mob up like peasants to still not achieve anything, the other can just click and change things without justifying. We are effectively an oligarchy and this is not a moral judgemen but a factt

Powerful witnesses change their mind at will, one day they are approving a proposal that bars people from getting funded, then the thing they want funded is defunded and suddenly they want to drop the bar. Without justifying publicly.

This is exactly what I mean when I say the DHF is a backdoor. It is not symmetrical and large holders can bar small holders, it has a threshold of HP where below it your opinion doesn't matter. It may be by design and I'd grant it may be useful, but it scares away investors.

It is ok that witnesses do not justify their votes. But what if we had a baked in mechanism to defund proposals without peasants having to mob up and grab pitchforks?

That is why I made the proposal 381, for a kinder and more civilized defunding strategy, backed by already onchain stress signals:

@igormuba/i-opened-a-protocol-pr