Hi Bao, indeed, I also am concerned about such a situation.
I have been thinking about potential means after doing some research, and let me share some of them.
- Quadratic Voting: Using this quadratic approach, voting power would be determined by the square root of the ASTR held. This way, even smaller wallets could have relatively high voting power compared to a single entity with a large amount of ASTR. This approach could encourage more community members to participate, as they might feel their votes carry more weight, rather than feeling like their participation (vote) is negligible.
- Voting Power Cap: While it may seem too simplistic, having a cap on voting power could be a straightforward solution worth discussing.
- Activity History in the Astar Network Ecosystem: We could also consider the number of txs or the frequency of reward claims as a measure of a voter’s engagement in the ecosystem. This could help ensure that those who have been consistently active in the network have more influence.
Of course, there are still potential challenges, such as the possibility of users splitting their ASTR across multiple wallets to maximize their voting power under a quadratic system. However, I believe exploring and discussing these options could lead to meaningful improvements, if necessary.