As I understand it, the voting runs forever and is intended to give everyone feedback of what the stakeholders support. So we see currently 34% of the stake weight is voting to end digging, and 66% of it isn't.
I understand waiting a week or more however:
I don't get it. How can any fair voting system take into account those who don't vote? When you say "66% of it isn't" is that not an incorrect statement if it is intending to mean they are against petition 5afa074c? Even direct abstain votes does not mean they are against any specific petition.
So this is starting to sound like there has never been any intentions to act on what the greater
clam voting community wants. Emphasis on "clam voting community". Those who don't vote, typically don't want a voice and as is in any truly
fair voting system, they are not taken as part of the voting tallies. Else it calls to question the clamour voting system in general (or any voting system to take such an approach).
As for the developers and massive premines, that is a null issue. If this vote was never intended to be acted on, as it is becoming clear, and tallies are based on non voters...then we have exactly what the initial distribution has shown us: An unfair system that does not support the vast number of newcomers to crypto, rewards criminals who in the past have setup fractional reserve systems and scammed the greater BTC/LTC/Doge community. Exposes anyone who presently supports the greater clams community as we have recently experienced. To quote the old lady in the commercial "None of this makes any sense."
What really makes me smile is the moniker of "fair distribution"
This whole voting is...well,...a bit fishy. What am I missing?