The trick AE devs use to get the maximum from BRI voting


#23

Your moderators deleted my post on reddit, that forced me to edit “less damaging” post from your point of view and then it also got deleted. Stop lying around and if you really want this BRI junk to look at least cleaner you will count all the voices, not only those who is pro BRI.

Of course now you unshadowed this post back when caught.


#24

That is not “community terms and conditions” because constructed by you and your co-workers.
Clearly Alcoholics vs Vodka.


#25

Such attitude! :smiley: Wow. Great communication style.


#26

Hello again guys. The rules are simple:

0% - is an effective “No” vote
1%-20% is an effective “Yes” vote

The BRI percent is determined only by the positive votes . This is not a trick. This is logic.

If 51% of token holders voted 0%, there will be NO BRI, irrespective of the fact that 49% of token holders voted something else.

I was wondering at first why you’ve chosen such a calculation approach, but it makes total sense now. If 51% vote 0%, the BRI is rejected. Whereas if all voted counted as the other guys suggest, even if 51% vote 0%, there still can be a certain percentage BRI that passes.


#27

Your logic is broken, because if there are 50% of voting power don’t want to give anything to these people their voice will be simply ignored and when you ignore 50% of people it’s simply a trick. We are determining average here. So there must be either 2 rounds where 1st round determines whether 2nd round makes sense at all and if yes, the 2nd round must be used to determine actual percentage of the tax. This or just one round where you count “0” voters are much more correct than the current one.


#28

Well, 49% of British people voted against Brexit but Brexit is still happening. That’s called elections. Those 49% of British people remain ignored but what can we do. Brexit is either happening or not, you can’t have it both ways. BRI is either passing or not.

As we already answered you in Bitcointalk: if all votes counted, as you suggested, there would be no way for the BRI to be rejected altogether. Even if 51% of token holders voted against it, there would still be some people who voted for it (i.e. 1%-20%) and that would result in some small percentage of block reward going to the foundation. Now, token holders can vote with 0% and reject it.

Best,
Albena


#29

And we would have been accused of pushing the BRI “at all costs” :smiley:


#30

Brexit is all or nothing, BRI is supposed to determine average and you refuse to count “0”.


#31

Pretty much medieval logic here, let that woman sink so will know for sure if she is witch or not.


#32

So, if the majority vote No we get no BRI, and if the majority vote Yes we get a BRI

The alternative - which Sammy suggests - would mean that if a majority vote No we would get a BRI and if a majority vote Yes we also get a BRI

I really fail to see how the first alternative is “medieval” and the second one not… :man_shrugging:
But I am pretty sure there are politicians around that would prefer the second version of an election :slight_smile:


#33

We don’t need politicians because it’s not about politics, it’s about clean intentions. I proposed 2 variants, one is easy but it gives you something by default. The second one is the most fair variant (2 steps) but you prefer to act like sophistic kid instead. What you come up with is neither logically correct nor fair. The best way to vote for average is 2 step poll where first we decide if we want to give you a cut, the second poll determines how much.


#34

You are using “majority” term wrong. You are talking about proportion of votes, but what about majority in general. There is no quorum, so here for example 2% of tokens can decides on behalf all token-holders. The quorum is tricky in community voting, usually not a lot of people votes. Some governance is updating it with an algorithm after each voiting, for example:


#35

English is not my mother tongue! But are you sure I used majority wrong? It is my understanding that what you are referring to is normally called an “absolute majority”, the way I used majority is the most common way?


#36

You know you are mistaken, right? instead of asking people to vote against BRI you should be asking for them to vote for 1% or lower, in that way you will effectively lower the percentage they will take. Voting 0% only makes sense if over 50% of the votes are 0. otherwise 1 percent is the way to go. Sure this guarantees the votes are gonna be at least 1% but if you do the math, a bunch of 1% votes will skew the weighted average down.

If you knew as much of math as you thought you did, you would not ask people to vote 0.

Also, what you propose is to have two votes, one to see if BRI passes, and then one to check the percentage, in that way the people that disagree with it could vote zero and skew the percentage.

But the same way you want it to go closer to 0 do you realize they made it so it can’t get to 20% ? mathematically speaking unless everyone votes 19 and 20 it is impossible to get 20 by any means.

Can you prove the opposite of what you are saying? Can you prove the average as they propose it will yield the maximum instead of just a bit higher? Because if you can’t you have not a point indeed.


#37

Instead of accusing me you probably should take a look at time I created a thread to encourage people to vote against BRI. As said it’s a sneaky trick from team because this formula is so retarded so just a few noticed the trick. Under current circumstances when it’s known that voting is screwed the correct way is to re-vote the last day to give them as less as possible. In case 0% wins you just re-vote for 0 if previously voted for 1%, in case the majority of friendly idiots wins you simply re-vote for 1%. This is another proof that this poll sucks.


#38

OMG just look at formula, if majority votes “> 0” they simply ignore those who vote for “0”. Of course this trick yields them maximum.


#39

No it doesn’t, and you missed the whole point. sure it yields a higher weighted average, but it also means they can’t get 20% precisely because of that.

You realize by counting all the votes in from 1 to 20 it is impossible to achieve 1 or 20%, right?

You may have to go back to school and take statistics again.


#40

You know you are not independent person, right? Running some services for them and interested to take some breadcrumbs from this block cut? Any other reason why you constantly ignoring the fact that I always have been saying “up to 20%”?

Also stop calling this trick “a bit higher”. From the example they posted they are getting 10% vs 7%. It does not fit into category “a bit”.



#41

I was referring to “absolute majority”. My English is also not a mother tongue.
But when 5% of tokens will decide about some subject, it is hard to say that majority was pro. But of course logically it is true, that majority of voters was pro. So I wanted to point that majority of voters (those who votes pro or con) are not a majority of token-holders (or rather tokens in circulation).


#42

Stop saying fallacies.

Specifically the fallacy of attacking the person instead of the argument, this proves you lost and can’t defend it properly.

Second, I can imagine a lot of other ways that they could get 20% easily, for example, they control 14% of the funds, that is around 44 million AE, and if they vote they would undoubtedly sway the vote in their favor without issues. currently the total amount in votes is around 5 million AE. another thing here is that they could say they would use the “mode”, or the value with most votes, instead of a weighted average they would totally be able to get 20% easily. Also, in your example, 10% is still not close to 20% and your have a difference of 17.65% which, in most mathematic methos is acceptable.

Third, when i developed the telegram bot I was not offered a payment, I developed it because I wanted to, because I wanted to see a working bot for a project I like. I was motivated because of the fact that if it works people will use it.

Fourht, the team has taken several unilateral decisions that I do not agree with, and that the community was not consulted upon, examples: The launch date felt rushed - no tools, no explorer, no functional wallet. The inflation chart - 100% inflation in less than 2 years felt like exaggerated. The increase in fees of 10000x - scared of a flood or abuse, but in fact it just makes the network more expensive to use. So don’t come at me trying to say I blindly follow them, I do not. I voice my opinion and they have heard me several times, you can ask any member of the telegram group or look at my posts in the forum. I am really vocal about it.

Fifth, you are too focused what you think you saw that you don’t realize what it really means. I see you complain over and over and say that people should vote this or that way. But have you proposed a real solution? A way to prevent this from happening ever again? Have you even considered the points of the guys that told you why it is not like you think? because all I see is you attacking the people and saying the same thing over and over. you are not convincing, you are not educating, you are preaching… like a zealot.

I don’t need to look you up, I don’t need to expose you, you are doing that on your own.
So, besides that point you keep repeating, do you have a new one? a real argument? a proposal?