# A Proposal for Voting Stake Calculation **URL:** \ **Category:** General\ **Created:** [February 25, 2021, 6:42pm UTC](https://forum.algorand.co/t/a-proposal-for-voting-stake-calculation/2693 "2021-02-25T18:42:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 10
**Author:** ![aybehrouz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba9def/32.png) [@aybehrouz](https://forum.algorand.co/u/aybehrouz)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2021, 12:25pm UTC](https://forum.algorand.co/t/a-proposal-for-voting-stake-calculation/2693/10 "2021-03-03T12:25:05Z")
> [@tebok](#): > > For example, what if your multi-billionaire was not planning to attack the network, but just wanted to get involved with a large “investment”. Wouldn’t this mean that the security of the network gets significantly more concentrated and weakened, when the users from whom the token were purchased from lose their say in the consensus, and the billionaire’s new tokens would also have no meaningful weight in the consensus for quite some time? That’s a very good point and this issue is worth discussing. The problem of low total stake arise in other situations too. For example, when a large number of users go offline and we don’t have enough online stake, or when in a locked staking system we can not register enough stakers for a staking period. However, with a good implementation this problem will not threaten the security of the system. Because we can easily design an emergency shut down mechanism which halts the operation of the blockchain when it detects that the total active stake of the system is too low. So, the problem of missing stake is a threat for the liveliness of our protocol and not its security. Also, we should note that when the total stake of our system goes down due to ALGO transferring the attacker needs to already have a considerable amount of stake or he needs to somehow corrupt existing stakers. He can not attack the system by buying ALGOs from the market because the new ALGOs wont give him any stake. (In the current version of Algorand, when we have low total stake because many users are offline, the same thing does not apply.) As a solution, I don’t think short time step would be a good idea. We can not accept the halting of the system for several days either, and if we let the system run the weakened security is not acceptable even if it lasts only for few days. In my opinion the best solution would be to have a minimum amount for the user’s trust value as I’ve described in the [updated](https://github.com/aybehrouz/AVM/blob/main/gfm/avm.md#estimating-a-users-stake) version of the document. One reason that I suggested the stake based reward distribution was that I noticed I had to some how incentivize people to always use their old accounts and discourage them from creating new accounts. If users create new accounts with no reason and transfer their balance to them, that may halt the system due to low total stake. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.algorand.co/t/a-proposal-for-voting-stake-calculation/2693)._