Totally agree with you, but I actually meant another thing by the idea of vote decaying.

I, of course, expressed your idea by using "vote value".

It's useless to create more accounts if we use a combo of changes such as:

• Highering the number of consensus witnesses.
• Changing the number of votes allowed per account,
• Changin how the weight of the votes is calculated as you mentioned (there are other examples that can be implemented).

What I meant by "vote decaying" is adding another great and easy-to-implement layer of security that can be found on the EOS chain.

Producer Vote Decay

Much of the work we are doing since Dawn 3.0 involves tweaking the system contract. One of those tweaks is the implementation of vote decay. In order to maintain maximum voting influence each voter will have to re-assert their vote every week. Voting influence decays with a half-life of 1 year for those who do not keep their votes up to date.

We recommend that the constitution contain language forbidding the use of automated voting bots as the purpose of vote-decay was to ensure that voters re-evaluate their decisions rather than “set-it and forget it”. While it is not possible to prove the use of bots, it will be possible to prove that people do not use smart contracts to auto-vote.

As you see, it's an excellent way to keep the community involved and mitigate the vote of people who are inactive, don't know what is going on, or just deceased.

If the value of your vote is 100 Steem = 100 Power. Things will change over time if you don't update your votes. It will go from 100 to 95, and so on.

We really need to think about these things, why should we only evolve when we are at the brink of extinction? We need to foresight potential problems and deal with them before they happen.