As I said early on (I removed that content from About page as I tried to shrink its length, but early visitors may remember it), I intend to vote according to principles.
But here you can find a hint of it (Adherence to principles of Free Market economics and ethics).
There’s a democracy proposal currently, suggesting to increase the number of validators by 20 - ID 0xb5477f1cbab50d31823f29123da18ddbc484bf1271f7d9b1bd8dd1cc8ec026da.
I voted “no”. And with a 2x multiplier for good measure.
There’s no special reason to vote (or to vote Yes, or No).
Validator economics is currently broken, so I see no reason to modify it if the proposal doesn’t do anything to fix it.
If the proponents of this proposal win, 20 validator slots will be added. That would likely make it easier for non-Team-backed validators to run, but it won’t fix the problem. (see the linked post which explains why).
If the opponents win, no validators will be added, so the problem will remain. But at least there will be some pressure on the Team to examine current problems.
The sad part here is TM-backed nodes are voluntary and involuntary rentiers already handsomely benefiting from the relative lack of competition, but adding more nodes impacts them the same as not adding more nodes - either way, it won’t do anything for making the situation more fair, so Nay it is.
I would have used a higher multiplier, but with the economic mess that they’ve created for independent validators I can’t plan and say I won’t need to move those coins for 28 days. At this time that’s not possible anyway, but in the event it becomes possible in next 2-4 weeks, I may need to do something with the coins and as long as my independent node manages to get elected without “hard” nomination (meaning, I nominate several nodes and not just my own), I won’t proactively terminate XXV2.