Why decentralisation doesn't always work

One of the big promises of crypto is decentralisation. Many people consider it a good thing and I agree. However, I've seen some shady things happen the last few months and I would like to point them out. In this case we're going to look at two proposals within the Cosmos ecosystem.

​

Proposal 89 - Cosmos Ecosystem News Videos

This proposal passed with 50.68% of the votes. Youtube channel 'Cosmic Validator' asked for 1800 ATOM to continue making videos about Cosmos. When you take a quick look at their channel you can see their content is very bad and that nobody is watching their videos. General consensus in the community was that this would be a waste of money, yet this proposal still passed.

​

Proposal 101 - Aid proposal for earthquake survivors in Turkiye

This proposal passed with 51.70% of the votes. Now I must say opinions where mixed on this, but general consesus was that donating ATOM to charity wasn't a good idea. This proposal asked for 20000 ATOM to help the victims in Turkiye. It passed and we never got an update (correct me if I'm wrong) what happened with the money.

​

Now here is the problem. The community can vote all it want, but if there are validators with a lot of voting power it will be very difficult to have a fair process and that's exactly what happened with the proposals above. I don't want to turn this into a long political post but in both cases the proposers where backed by some big validators which made it easy to get the proposal approved.

This definitely needs a solution. I think it would be fair to set a limit on the maximal voting power a validator can have to keep it all fair. What do you think?