Quite interesting to know others GMX’rs thought on that 
There is latest results from latest voting.
One single top voter have more voting power than all others COMBINED 
there is a link:
UPD:
It turned out that GMX governance structure is more legit than I thought 
HERE is explanation by @gmsolq
Couldn’t this be due to delegations? I would suspect this is because people in the community agree with his thesis in addition he is a large holder.
it is a concern from decentralization pov but the logic behind Q’s proposals are sound, while being a large holder and quite the professional Delegate. as a fellow delegate to Q, i find it hard to delegate anyone else quite honestly… the overall professional demeanor resonates with me. so i apologize for not contributing more to decentralization here i suppose.
are you recommending something?
as it stands the one thing where Q abstains his own holdings vote i suppose is in the gmSOL deployment that he is spearheading at the moment. but he may still act as a delegate. not sure.
everything thus far is highly aligned with gmx. but if he proposes something i don’t agree with i will object to it and perhaps reDelegate to someone that i align with. just the way it is.
yepp, I agree with you in terms of Q’s general vision that he looks reasonable etc… I personally have nothing against Q as a member of GMX government (and in most cases I agree with his comments and proposed ideas, not in every case though…)
But my concern more not about Q , for sure, but rather about the situation, when one member have such a huge disproportional power in decision making… when I see such situation with my voting power (I didnt delegated my voting power to anyone and participate in every voting by my own) — I just feel pointless of my participation… and I suppose such picture just lead me to abandon gov process at all.
thats why I decided to rise this question and ask other members thoughts here…
as a possible solution (idk if it technically possible though…) - we can introduce some ceiling for delegate, in relative value based on other participants voting power.
there can be many implementations with many details but general idea of ceiling I think should be clear .
For an example:
if at the time of final votes calculation one voter have dramatic impact (his VP is equal to all others combined) - his VP is slashed so it become 20%(all others combined).
On the other hand, indeed the ability to redelegate is good as well. But lets be realistic, most people will delegate and just forgot about whats happen there next… So when one person got disproportional VP is just danger anyway imho. In context of DAO.
Hopefully some of the other bigger delegates cast their votes soon as well
Hi Russiamanbit,
Thank you very much for raising this concern. It made me rethink the possibility of me or some delegates acting maliciously and how to address it. This indeed needs to be considered, especially with the recent governance attack incident on Compound.
For GMX, there is first a general election process on Snapshot. In this process, each of us can only vote based on our own judgment, so there is no risk of manipulation here (especially for a token as decentralized as GMX).
Afterward, there is Tally, where delegates vote. In my opinion, this step is merely a confirmation of the Snapshot results, and unless the delegates have clear objections, they should follow the Snapshot general election results.
In other words, Tally actually functions more as a veto power, while Snapshot reflects community consensus to determine which proposals will be approved and which will not.
Therefore, under this governance structure, if I wanted to act maliciously or if I were hacked and proposed something harmful to GMX, I would not be able to push it to the Tally step, as it would most likely be vetoed at the Snapshot step.
I hope this addresses your concerns.
Q
a ha! got it. 
thanx for clarification, I didnt know about that governance structure where snapshot voting IS actually first and primary stage where VP (gmx stake) get into account per user and Tally is rather “extra” step kind of thing.
oke, it looks much better now. 
At the same time, I don’t quite agree with the viewpoint that you might feel your opinion won’t have any impact due to not having enough GMX, and therefore choose not to participate in governance. For example, by raising such doubts here and questioning me, I believe you are making a significant contribution to the GMX community. Voting weights may differ, but everyone’s opinions are equally important, and I believe the GMX governance structure has already well reflected this.
Think this could help more. Cheers.
There is some protection implemented by tally proposal workflow itself. There is 1 day delay between posting proposal and start of voting itself. Voting power can be redelegated in that period. So if some delegate will try push malicious actions community still has short time window to prevent it.
Indeed, it’s a very good perspective.
