To pre-emptively answer a question that may arise from the above proposal… Who are all the “persons” who should be allowed to vote in this “1 person = 1 vote” proposal? All algo holders? Or all the people of the world (even if they don’t have any stake or interest in algorand)?
If you have read my earlier post about Injecting Algo into Circulation via UBI, the answer actually becomes obvious. Since both the UBI and the “1 person = 1 vote” both require KYC, and implementing UBI would automatically make every KYC-verified person a stakeholder with an interest in Algorand’s success, the answer is that it should be the same group of people in both.
This of course assumes the UBI-method of distributing the currency would be adopted first, but why wouldn’t you? The only valid reason I have heard so far, is the objection to including any form of KYC in the design of the crypto economy.
But thinking of it, if there are two groups of Algorand advocates (from the technology point of view), where one is against KYC, and one is OK with it if it allows better designs from the economic and governance point of view, why not implement both as separate blockchains? Ensure that Algorand’s superior technology and Pure Proof of Stake will be the winner no matter what, while letting the users decide which version of Algorand they want to adopt as a real world currency?