26 votes as of now doesn't seem to qualify as a Sybil attack. If there are 1000 votes, then maybe. I think the forum doesn't allow newbie accounts to vote.
Few votes == not statistically significant.
A lot of votes == Sybil-attacked.
Looks like a failure from the very beginning.
Whine your spam at Theymos. You are claiming all polls on this site are a scam because you don't like the vote on Iota. Your problem is with Theymos, not with me. The readers here are perhaps giving you some valuable feedback. Ignore it at your own peril.
The truth hurts, but don't shoot the person who asked the question. Shoot Theymos or yourself (or David/iotatoken). I presume Iota's ICO has been very profitable, so I don't think bitterness is appropriate. Market feedback is what it is. If you think the poll is invalid, perhaps you should endeavor to prove it. I would think 100 votes here is statistically significant to gauge roughly the sentiment here on this board. The polls may be Sybil attacked, I don't know. I think you will find that most readers are clueless so there is no accurate sentiment. Rather there are fools lead to the slaughter on this board, so I rather like the outcome of the poll that basically says nearly all the altcoins are scams. That seems rather factual from my expert perspective.
Personally I lean towards the ICO of Iota is a scam based on some innuendo I've heard (but I haven't fully investigated and have no time to waste on that). I think the technology is fundamentally flawed (although somewhat interesting and worthwhile to understanding, but not worthwhile to implement*) and I would never have endorsed it because it would scar my reputation (at least not until a Nash equilibrium is mathematically proven*). The implementation (which you did) may be sound, but I haven't reviewed your code. I assume you produce good code based on what others have said, and also the astuteness of your posts.
* Note there is an argument that centralization is unavoidable and thus one might argue you are okay to proceed. Or perhaps you will eventually show or argue that as long as 50% of the merchants enforce a single math algorithm, then it remains sound. But in my mind, that is still a power vacuum that leads to centralization, because it requires that merchants can't find other game theories for profiting. Maybe you can show they have no other incentive and thus there is a Nash equilibrium. In that case, my opinion of Iota's technology would rise significantly. I don't expect you can show a Nash equilibrium because the CAP theorem assures us that when you allow Partition tolerance as Iota has done, then you lose either Access of Consistency.