Please reread my exegesis of how witness voting currently works, and what I propose is necessary. In no way do I suggest anything other then DPoS. What I note happens now is that larger stake's influence is multiplied 30x.

That's not DPoS at all, but stealth oligarchy. Stake should be proportionately represented in influence on governance in order to effect DPoS, and that is what I propose.

The abstention of exchanges and the founder's stake from voting is a separate issue, and I also recommend both of those parties execute code already available to restrict their accounts from voting.

I do specifically address the founder's stake advantage, and agree with your characterization of it's threat to decentralization as remaining unaddressed.

Perhaps you're tired, and did not understand the comment. Regardless of why you didn't understand the comment, your reply indicates you did not understand it.

tl;dr

1. I do only discuss DPoS, and not some other mechanism.
2. the problem I discuss is disproportionate representation of stake in the present witness voting mechanism, not DPoS at all.

" The difference between their hodlings is 999,900 Steem. The difference in the weight of their influence on governance however is 29,997,000 Steem."

How is that DPoS?

1. I do specifically address the founder's stake and agree with you that it has been a threat as long as Steem has existed, that the witnesses have not resolved.
2. I did not address the founder's stake or exchanges abstaining from voting in this comment, but agree they must abstain, and have said so elsewhere.