aave-protocol VS neo

Aave-protocol (1200 GitHub Stars) https://github.com/aave/aave-protocol

If u really need the float number u can scale up ur numbers say by another 10**18 use that during the math and scale it back at the very end. Just be careful when scaled up, certain math behave differently like multiply and division, u could however use wadray math lib from aave for this https://github.com/aave/aave-protocol/blob/master/contracts/libraries/WadRayMath.sol

Aave for example provides a platform for permissionless lending and borrowing of assets. The token for Aave governs the decisions that go into the development and maintenance of the platform, and gets its value from the value that the project itself governs, i.e. the value of the assets locked in its platform.

By digging through the aave-protocol github repository, I found a file called TokenDistributor.sol, which contains the functions that update the balances given the tokens and rates.

Aave (AAVE) - https://github.com/aave/aave-protocol/blob/master/docs/Aave_Protocol_Whitepaper_v1_0.pdf

Neo (3400 GitHub Stars) https://github.com/neo-project/neo

Some discussion that covers many of the arguments on both sides here: https://github.com/neo-project/neo/issues/2118

Take a look at something like https://github.com/neo-project/neo or https://github.com/Felandil/tangle-.net to see how much work is really required just to get something basic up and running.

Yes, this was a topic of considerable debate during N3's development. The degree to which one considers it a serious issue really depends on what one sees as the key features of governance--stability vs. democratic expression, etc. Of course, the basic fact of a node falling out of the top 21 isn't weird; the question is more around how easy it should be to get back in.

It's good discuss the voting mechanism and other aspects of NEO. Have you seen the comments on GitHub? A lot of people and devs (also people ^_^) are there, for example: https://github.com/neo-project/neo/issues/2598

One, there has been quite a bit of discussion over the past year about the design of the new governance system, and its potential flaws with respect to promoting node turnover--e.g. here, but also at various times in this sub (sidebar, you'll see that your "votes are reset" idea was proposed in that thread, say). As an oversimplified TL;DR, I think many--myself included--would agree with you that the system tends to promote the status quo. Where things get muddy is whether that's a feature or a bug. For reasons of both regulatory compliance and stability, the Neo team has intentionally designed a system where turnover, while possible, isn't specifically incentivized; that is, in their view it should happen because there's a strong, governance-related reason for it, not because of financial incentives.

The governance model has been designed to incentivise stability while still allowing flexibility. However, the issue you raise is already being discussed on GitHub here: https://github.com/neo-project/neo/issues/2598