the problem with slowing the emission rate is that we create a worse off/ better off situation which differs from the beginning of the emission "contract" - that said nobody cares if we change the blocktime due to technical reasons and adjust the emission rate accordingly.

regarding the financing of development, I think this is the most crucial point in the evolution of monero. a development solely driven by donation does not work. I could write a wall to explain why this is different to the early days of bitcoin

XMR is the future.

I feel the same way. Whilst I am not the largest Monero holder my exit would certainly move the price.

what about icebreakers proposal for some kind of an postmine, which could be auctioned for financing development? For some reason I did not make entirely clear for me I think this is quite a good solution

I see your point, I was really trying to say that at or around 50% I think the status quo should continue. I'm not sure what the appropriate number for change would be economics suggest 50% obviously my personal view is that for such substantial changes that number should be closer to 60% for various reasons.

Please make a new clone from github one more time. There was a bad commit that got removed but then got reapplied later. Some people ended up with the wrong one. Everything is fixed now afaik.

Agreed then.

And I'll even add, "50% of what?", which is a tricky question: a majority of users? a majority of funds? a mining majority? (in my own understanding, "economic majority" is not necessarily identical to "fund majority", but also includes network influence and "soft influence" like community standing - but because of its fuzzy definition, you can't really put "economic majority" in that sense into a vote)

Also: do we require a simple majority or an absolute majority?

Not impossible to come to come to a solution on those topics, but I'll freely admit, it'll be a pain to agree on the decision making process on this matter.

For the readers, it might be interesting to know that smooth is a member in the core team + also has a large stake in MEW hinting that he is one of the most involved people in Monero. If they make bad decisions in the core team, his personal investment also suffers.

The beauty of MEW is that everyone may voice their own opinion and vote for it, and the majority wins. Even then, the core team may totally independently decide whether to act according to the guidance or not.

Mostly, the matters that MEW is interested in do not even require the core team to implement. In these cases it is very easy - the burden of implementation rests totally on the ones who voted in favor.

MEW is not trying to force the majority opinion on anyone. The rationale for voting is to measure the support on initiatives. For me personally, it would be a great tragedy if I spent my time doing something that most would not even want to use. Submitting my ideas to economic vote before implementation, saves me from many griefs.

What happens when the 4th 5th or 6th vote gets ignored by the DEV's at what point does MEW decide to find new DEV's and fork the coin?