Indeed, they did, but one more also voted yes, so with one more yes vote, the asset should be ready for IPO.
If you notice in the comment, the No was based on price, and I believe the market will decide whether the reduced price and bonus dividends will compensate for that. In other words, I take the No vote to heart but I think investors will need to decide for themselves whether the price is too high, too low, or just right.
.b
I'm tempted to grab a voting stake just to offset "nos" that obviously come from people who simply don't want to invest and vote "no" instead of simply abstaining... but the dividend is too low to justify locking up 2000 LTC or whatever the current price is.
This argument has been had before. Problem with defining guidelines is that they then have to be enforced. If they're enforced then someone hasto decide whether the vote was correct or not. If someone gets to decide that they may as well save time and just approve (or not) securities themselves.
Personally I wouldn't vote NO just because I believed something was likely to be unprofitable - but others may choose to and may be correct in doing so. My main criteria (when I have a vote - which hasn't been the case for a while) are that the contract is clear and that I've no reason to believe the operator would act dishonestly or without integrity. But to an extent I'm biased by self-interest - as I trade rather than invest so investments being unprofitable isn't that important to me.
Others may believe that an unprofitable investment is not just bad for investors - but also for the exchange (as it removes investment capital from play and potentially could put investors off further investment after they realise they lost money). I see that as a valid reason to vote NO - if it's what voters believe.
If someone put up a bond with a clear contract that was going to sell shares at 1 BTC each but stated it would only ever pay back 0.1 BTC would YOU approve it? If not, why not? If you'd vote NO on that why would you approve one where investors would make a loss but it wasn't so clear?
NOTE: I'm NOT saying this is an unprofitable investment. But if a voter genuinely believes it IS unprofitable is it actually wrong for them to vote NO? Think carefully about my example where a bond was explicitly unprofitable - as it's very easy to fall into an irrational and inconsistent position where you'd vote NO to something explicitly unprofitable but vote YES to something unprrofitable but less obvious. And that position, of course, would be directly rewarding deception. And that's why whilst I wouldn't personally vote NO I'm totally fine with people voting NO where they believe something is unprofitable (AND they believe unprofitable investments are bad for the exchange).
And Furuknap always has the option of presenting a model explaining how it IS profitable - to persuade them to change their vote. Far worse is where someone votes NO and gives no reason at all - as then the issuer can't do anything.