Regarding how many voters vote.

David said:
Sorry I didn't mean it in terms of chronological order of proposals. I meant it more like this:

Sally really likes Terpin-PR, Satoshi Roundtable, and Soda Reimbursement. Sally knows that they can't all be funded this month, so she prioritizes. She thinks Terpin-PR is really amazing and Satoshi Roundtable is great too. She thinks Soda Reimbursement is necessary and fair, but she values the other two proposals more, so she votes yes to them and no to Soda Reimbursement. Not because she doesn't want it to pass, but because she wants her two preferred items to pass more.

(Or she thinks Satoshi Roundtable is great but feels that Soda Reimbursement is most important because fair is fair, and so she reluctantly submits two yeses and one no. Not trying to demonstrate bias here; just clarifying what I meant.)
Click to expand...

Voting no for the Soda Reimbersement will not allow both the other proposals to go through. One of the 718 or 1100 Dash proposals will get bounced and there will be more than 100 Dash available to fund projects like the Soda Reimbursement. The available funds is about 7500 next month and there are 8100 in proposals. There is enough misinformation being spread in these forums, please don't contribute to that.
 
Solarminer said:
Voting no for the Soda Reimbersement will not allow both the other proposals to go through. One of the 718 or 1100 Dash proposals will get bounced and there will be more than 100 Dash available to fund projects like the Soda Reimbursement. The available funds is about 7500 next month and there are 8100 in proposals. There is enough misinformation being spread in these forums, please don't contribute to that.
Click to expand...

Touche. In reality, the point I'm making has nothing to do with any of the current proposals. I'm looking at the future, so I suppose I shouldn't use today's proposals as an example. In order to prevent any possibility of my spreading misinformation, permit me to rephrase:

"Sorry I didn't mean it in terms of chronological order of proposals. I meant it more like this:

"Sally really likes Proposal-A, Proposal-B, and the much smaller Proposal-C. Sally knows that they can't all be funded this month, so she prioritizes. She thinks Proposal_a is really amazing and Proposal-B is great too. She thinks Proposal-C is necessary and fair, but she values the other two proposals more, so she votes yes to them and no to Proposal-C. Not because she doesn't want it to pass, but because she wants her two preferred items to pass more.

"(Or she thinks Proposal-B is great but feels that Proposal-C is most important because fair is fair, and so she reluctantly submits two yeses and one no. Not trying to demonstrate bias here; just clarifying what I meant.)"
 
David I think the idea here is let the voters choose and eventually everything works out.

We can't add in "weight" to each proposal behind the scenes, let the nodes decide. If something gets bumped, owell. Such is democracy.

Hopefully, I understood what you were saying.
 
TheDashGuy said:
David I think the idea here is let the voters choose and eventually everything works out.

We can't add in "weight" to each proposal behind the scenes, let the nodes decide. If something gets bumped, owell. Such is democracy.

Hopefully, I understood what you were saying.
Click to expand...

Essentially, yes. I was just basically explaining why someone might vote against a proposal even though they are in favor of it. I agree--nobody can make those determinations or "weight" things other than the voter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top