I don’t understand what kind of surprise would there be. Phoenix has already stated that he will keep them at ~40%. He can probably manage his part. What a show.
Thanks. The methodology is quite usual in analysis field.
The posts about methodology should remain mostly factual so they canbe applied elsewhere. Interpretation can be included if generally useful but they really should go into separate posts.
The single identity conclusion has already been made in the OP and the post of control data, which used patterns of m/gs in a voting block to show overwhelming evidences of a single actor. But the data period and motion address coverage were both limited in those studies.
The last few posts give overall pictures of the voting scene, in terms of time-coverage and address coverage, using un-ordered m/g vote information in voting blocks to show that most shares voting for a specific group of m/gs only come out for special purposes, so are someone’s tactic tool.
Another evidence to show that a single actor is in control is that all these high-balance addresses start to find blocks of a new m/g within less than an hour. Human votors would started voting in hours if not days.
Finally good-old transaction analysis like MArk referred to can definately associate addresses with one wallet/actor.
These can go into a paper on detecting potential danger, in way of open or covert concensus control., faced by POS based voting systems.
We have to understand the situations before we recgnize the problems. I think it is fairly clear that an single actor absolutely controls ~170m nsr and some supporters 50m. The majority community (by head count) oppose the actor and have ~150m nsr. Other 50m have their own thoughts.
I already have a script to print 100-block consecutive Yes percentage by a list of addresses in any time period. So it is already possible for a group of community members to pass their own motions if instead of 100, 5000 blocks is used.
[Edit: there is no need to change local wallets in order to run the script]
