Topic: Starting a new FPGA mining farm/contract! Cognitive Resurrected on[Havelock] - page 126. (Read 300616 times)

We just need a set of operating rules that will set a quorum needed for a motion vote to be valid, a timeline for the length the motion is up for voting, and the percentage of the voting shares that need to pass a motion.  The higher the quorum the lower the majority is needed.

Ex.
quorum: 60%
motion passes: 51%
voting timeline: 2-3 weeks
undeclared shares: removed the quorum requirement

Sorry I miscalculated. Everything adds up 

Hey all,

First of all, I'd like to apologize for my absence for the past two days.

On GLBSE, non-voting shares were treated the same way abstaining shares are treated on BTC-TC: They are discarded from the total vote tally. In the past, this was always how Cogintive had done its voting. However, because of the amount of people asking for a specification here, I propose we set some definitions for voting.

There are a few fair methods of doing this. Personally, I would prefer that we set a minimum motion duration plus an email going out to all shareholders at the beginning of the motion, then we treat all non-voting shares as a BTC-TC style abstain vote.

Another option that I consider fair would be stochastic's suggestion:

I believe that with the whole exchange migration, there still might be a considerable amount of idle shares, even though the login info etc has been successfully sent to shareholders. I'm sure burnside could investigate this and come back with a number of shares whose dividends have not been withdrawn, or some other gauge.

So although I believe that this particular vote passed with 92% voting for (as it would have on GLBSE), I think that we should cast a revote using one of the above methods. Of course, I'm open to alternatives as well. So, shareholders, what do you propose?

Also, 100% of revenue for the past week will go out as a dividend today. I want to get this sorted out before executing a change!

Happy superbowl day!
--Garrett

This is probably wise.


This is certainly best practice. I wish most people would be doing this to the point it becomes a matter of course.


A very good point.

We need to have the time for a vote to take place, the quorum requirements, and percentage of votes needed to be pass a motion set down and not done on a whim or be inconsistent.  The precedent needs to be set in the contract.

Nope it's not  reasonable to assume that - as I said, I'm pretty sure the motion would have got sufficient votes to pass ahd it lasted longer.  But it's a vote to make a very major change - so no assumptions should be made either way on how people vote: the vote should last long enough that all investors get their say.

For the record, I held (on behalf of my fund) Cognitive shares at time of the vote (still do) and voted Yes - my concern isn't this motion specifically passing but the principle of setting a precedent that contract changes can be made where only a minority of shareholders even vote (likely, in my view, to the voting period being too short for a majority to even become aware of its existence).

There's some things which, even in BTC land, can't be accelerated too much.

I should note that, in apparent contradiction to my stance here, my own fund HAS made contract changes twice with only 24 hour votes - but both times:

1.  The proposal was explained in detail some time before a vote went up - with no arguments raised against it (some questions, which I answered of course).
2.  Over 75% of all outstanding units voted yes with zero No votes and zero Abstains.
3.  I hold just under 50% myself - but only vote Yes if there's no significant No votes (I won't push through a contract change if there's any significant objection to it - obviously a 1 unit investor voting No wouldn't deter me).
4.  If I make a contract change I also offer to buy back any units at just above current value (this is necessary as mine's a fund - so shouldn't really change contract at all with outstanding units - this allows anyone who objects to get back more than if I closed the fund and restarted it with new contract).

So me passing motions in 1 day isn't really comparable - as there's factors making it very different in practice.

is it reasonable to assume that the other 50 percent of shareholders would overwhelmingly vote no? So far shareholders have overwhelming voted in favour of it and I represent most of the vote against.

Yeah - but difference there is that there's a much greater degree of certainty that the overwhelming majority of voters were aware of the vote.  If this (like local elections where I live) had been publicised months in advance and everyone mailed a reminder (ballot slip) a few weeks in advance and advocates of all parties been canvassing, sending propganda mailshots etc then yes - it's reasonable to assume that the vast majority of those who didn't vote were intentionally abstaining (and hence not counted in the criteria to pass).  But where you can't have any certainty of awareness of the vote, you can't reasonably assume that people are CHOOSING not to vote.

Choosing not to vote = abstaining
Not being aware of the vote is NOT abstaining

It is better than local elections where I am from where < 15% of the eligible voting population actually votes and of actual voters those with >50% win the election or proposition.

50%  of all shareholders need to participate in the voting process for the motion to be valid and of those voting 70% need to vote YES.  So if there are 8000 shares total, 4000 shares need to have cast their ballots.  Of the 4000 ballots cast 2800 need to vote YES for the motion to pass.  Governance is always a tricky subject, but people can always vote with their feet as well, if they don't like the direction of a company then the share price goes down as they leave and other people don't want to join.

If it takes 70% of the eligible shareholders to participate and vote YES to pass a motion, that is fine, I just want to know how the voting works.

Maybe a motion to change the contract that states the minimum amount of time a motion needs to be open for voting, how the tally of motions will take place, and what quorum, if any, is required for a motion to be valid.

One way to inform shareholders is to require them to vote.  If they are not going to vote since they don't care what happens then they can vote ABSTAIN and their vote will not be counted.

It's too low for things like contract changes.

With that criteria a single investor with 30% of shares could (with assistance from the operator - or if the operator themselves) pass pretty much any motion just by having it run for a short period of time and not publicising it well.  And the most ironic thing is that if every other shareholder was opposed to it they'd WANT 20% of them to notice the motion and vote against it (to reach the quorum).

Unless you can be confident an overwhelming majority of shareholders KNEW about the vote I don't see anything less than 50% of outstanding shares (discounting anyone who abstained) being acceptable.  Contract changes shouldn't occur based on how many investors even knew there was  a vote - they should occur because a majority (of ALL investors weighted by shares) took an affirmative action to pass it (either voting yes or abstaining to reduce the majority needed).  You just can't have 30% of shareholders imposing a contract change on the other 70% because most of the other 70% didn't realise there was even a vote (That wasn't the numbers here - just making the point).

I'm pretty certain this motion would have passed if left up longer - but it wasn't left up longer.

Should a shareholder that does not want to vote be considered an ABSTAIN vote?


That is a good criteria.  A quorum of at least 50% of the shareholders need to participate and >50% of the voting participants is required to pass the motion.

vote should be considered as failed; such a contract change needs more shareholders to participate

I'd tend to think there were two seperate criteria for this one to pass (both of which needed to be met):

1.  That half or more of shareholders approve the change (50% of outstanding shares less abstains) - that should be a requirement for just about any change to a contract: a majority of investors (weighted by shares)  stating that they would like the change.
2.  Garr's own requirement of 70% that he imposed - which would only require 70% of those who voted to approve.

It's possible to meet #1 and fail #2 - if most investors vote and the results are close.
It's also possible to meet #2 but fail #1 (which happened here) - if the vote ends before a large chunk of investors have even voted.

I try to provide lots of numbers in terms of how people voted, but I don't really interpret the results.  It's up to the asset issuer and/or shareholders to determine what is the pass/fail scenario.

You're also correct that when you abstain, rather than counting as a NO, it removes your shares from consideration on the final approval percentages.  I figured if you want to say no, you can just say no. 

Based on what Garr stated, I'd call this one a fail.  And I agree, a week would probably be my minimum run on something trying to get 70%, with a notification and reminder post on the forums a few days before it closes to remind everyone.  (a notification emails everyone.)

Cheers.

Believe from memory burnside's default rule is majority of outstanding shares (if the contract specifices differently then I ASSUME that would be OK).

The problem of not enough votes usually arises because of a mix of voter apathy plus many investors not checking the forums/site often enough to even notice there was a motion - so votes need to be up a lot longer to get a majority.  In theory that makes sense - as a minority of shareholders shouldn't be able to change a contract just because the rest didn't notice there was even a motion.  But in practice it becomes a problem if a decent chunk of shareholders rarely if ever check here/the exchange.

Abstains work differently on BTC.CO.  They get removed from the number of available votes - so work in practice as going along with the majority vote.  So if there were 1000 shares then 501 would usually be needed to pass something (unless higher that 50% was required).  If 100 shares voted abstain then only 451 votes would be needed to show a 50%+ result (as the 100 have effectively asked to have their shares ignored in the vote).  Look at the votes on the LTC-Trading pass-through to see this in practice.

I'd also tend towards the motion not having passed - a contract change needs the support of a majority of shareholders, not the support of a minority whilst the majority didn't even express an opinion.  At same time it seems unlikely ALL those who didn't vote would vote no - so it would hardly be a grave injustice if it as considered to have passed: it would just set a precedent where a motion to do something daft could be passed with 10% of votes if it was run for 1 day and not publicised.

From what I understand there are 8614 shares outstanding.  I interpret the above quote from the motion to mean it needs a 70% majority of shareholders to vote YES for the motion to pass, and not mean that it needs 70% of voters to vote YES to pass the motion.  Voting NO or ABSTAIN or not replying to this motion is a vote for NO in this motion, IMO.

I voted YES, so your interpretation means 50% of the dividend will held Feb. 2.  In my interpretation the motion will probably fail to pass since it still needs 2000 more YES votes and the holders have had plenty of time to vote.

So which interpretation is correct Garr?

Vote is over and 4043 voted for and 351 voted no and 5 abstained seems like more than 70 percent to me?

It won't happen unless there are ~2000 more votes for the motion.

So does growth fund start with this dividend or the next one?

Avalon. Thursday. If you dare. Halloween in January.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/avalon-asic-batch-2-pre-sale-thread-139704