RE: Do Delegations Undermine The Entire POB Concept

Great work with the post @bitcoinflood, it's opened up some really healthy discussion and I've just stumbled onto it here after reading @amr008's response.

I understand the concern for the risks of centralization as we don't have to look far to see how some curation groups play favourites on the HIVE blockchain. The efforts needed for manual curation take time and there is always going to be a risk of excellent content getting buried and under-rewarded. Delegations can help with this if they're spread out in a thoughtful manner but the people holding delegations should always be under scrutiny.

I've received a 5000 POB delegation from @proofofbrainio and have had it for about 14 days now. Proofofbrainio mentioned in a comment here what he delegates to others for and I've taken the responsibility on board to try and spread my votes out as much as possible (work is still needed but I'm more than happy with anyone viewing my voting habits on https://hivestats.io/@calumam).

I've been thinking about how to further increase distribution over the past week or so and have started to make smaller delegations from my existing stake to others who are engaging often on the platform. This paired with the WOTW prizes and consistent quality vote spreading gives me some peace of mind for how I'm using the delegation, although I'm still trying to further improve.

It's a very important topic and like I say, people should be under scrutiny constantly when they have a delegation and I believe they should be removed if any issues are raised which put the platform at risk. I'll be making a post later on (or tomorrow) in response to this to try and get some more ideas about how it can be put to better use. I hope that it'll get the attention of other people with delegations and will lead to further improvements being made for how votes are cast across the platform.