After revisiting the complaints different people have in this thread (with respect to the votes; the rules feature is fine), these are my thoughts.

People lack faith in the ability of your system to resist alt abuse (the requirements, thresholds, and we haven't even begun testing the "user content contribution" requirements, which I think are most interesting).

The most interesting and legitimate complaints, I think, are those that reject the vote feature even assuming it functions perfectly, and with these people I can sympathize somewhat.

The votes are being created to solve the issue of centralized power, but the fact remains that virtually no one asked for this feature, and so the risk is that more people are likely to oppose it than vocally support it.

I would like to see Voat functioning more efficiently and less of a load on you, which I think you want as well, which is why you are doing this.

However I agree fundamentally with the hesitancy yo embrace full democracy. It does have the habit of ultimately limiting freedom. Look at our democratic societies and how they've been gamed to remove individual liberties again and again.

The fact remains that liberty is best defended by principled leaders with great power who are held to their principles by their people. Voat has stayed free because of your principles -- your refusal to censor or control narratives and your willingness to step in when power mods are destroying communities. Your strength and adherence to these principles is why I admire you so much. But it is a lot to place on one person who has other responsibilities; that is why you've been working on this vote system. But by decentralizing power too much we may lose everything we fought to preserve.

The polls aspect of the feature are perfect and can be used to gauge community opinion. The referenda may be too great a risk, even if requirements are set up perfectly so that account age and contribution are taken into account, the possibility remains that anti-freedom decisions will be made -- if not with the current userbase, then perhaps in a year's time.

But the issue of efficiency remains.

You said somewhere else in the thread that the database can handle volunteers now. Perhaps that is the best way to increase efficiency without decentralizing power and risking the destruction of what this platform stands for. Polls can be used in subverses to gauge opinion, helping mods to act in tough situations. Perhaps the referenda can find a place in a niche environment: large, non-@system, generically named subverses. (Consider /v/Chicago, /v/Canada, which are generically named subverses that are non-@system and corrupted with power mods). A fully implemented referendum feature could allow content producers and older accounts to oust those mods without risking fundamentally changing the core of Voat (@system subverses).

Meanwhile, volunteers who are somehow held to account (public action logs) could relieve some of the burden from you to help Voat run more smoothly. People like Cyna, if she were still around, or Owlchemy and NeedleStack; people who have proven to care about combating spam and keeping Voat usable. Subverse requests, spam removal, illegal content and dox content removal; these things could be spread out to active users who are held to account. I would recommend that you alone deal with moderator conflicts in @system subverses, since in this layout referenda would not apply to @system subverses or small subverses, just the niche cases I described, and people take the @system communities very seriously and probably wouldn't trust anyone buy you to handle issues in those communities. But other areas could be managed smoothly by volunteers.

To summarize:

• I suggest you pass the rules code when it is done being tested (I don't think many here who undetstand that feature have objected to that)
• Pass the votes feature; allow polls everywhere, but only allow referenda in non-@system, generically-named, large subverses.
• Find active volunteers for subverse requests, spam / illegal content / dox removal, and anything else you could use help with, except for handling @system subverse drama and probably site wide bannings -- keep that power to yourself. Have all actions of these volunteers public so that if they abuse power you can replace them.
• This essentially limits the non-dev work you have to do to bannings, @system drama, and volunteer management.

I realize this doesn't eliminate the fundamental and ultimate dependence on you, but unfortunately I don't think any functioning human community, online or offline, can do without a proper hierarchy. It does, however, eliminate the total dependence, increase efficiency, and refrain from jeopardizing this entire platform through the tyranny of the majority.