as the results are in of the first vote... needless to say both results are very damaging to this project. time is passing and investors are certainly not going to take this as a serious investment if either of those results are to be respected! and furthermore.... if we keep wiating it only gets worst! at the moment the entire list is just over 600 so those that voted with high numbers did alot more damage then anything else! i actually dont have to say "I TOLD YOU GUYS SO' AND PUTTING A NAME ON THAT KIND OF VOTE LIKE DIPSHIT OR ASS OR ANYTHING ELSE WOULD BE LIKE POST PAR TUM DEPRESSION!
i think we need to make a structured poll and allow only the valid participants vote, structured as in give them the choice of maybe 5 different results and not allow zero happy children play their games.
I do not agree that whatever happends in this first few weeks\months will in any way damage this project in the long run.. It will be up to the community and Founding Members to determine that with their actions... However i have to agree that inaction in this situation is not beneficial and a pool should be made with a few more " locked " results in order for us to be able to move along... If we allow so many different opinions and results in every vote that the founders will have to do then we wont be able to pregress... This is also a reason that leads me to think that we should also have a " king Arthur round table " where all founding members can disscuss within themselfs what are the best possible options and present them to vote in a more concise way...
I suggest we have a second vote to finalize participant number, to keep it fair, any new user that was not on the list when consensus was originally reached is not allowed to vote in this one, however new users may be added to the list while the vote is taking place.
This second vote should also not be a write in, it should be multiple choice only, with the choices being something like:
Option A: Consensus reached average, no votes disregarded - cap set at 15116
Option B: Consensus reached average, high limit outlier votes #430 and #588 disregarded - cap set at 2433
Option C: Cap set at 622, the number of participants when consensus was reached.
The vote should also have a reasonable date limit set for voting instead of simply when consensus is reached
