I'm not going to get into whether your asset should be approved or not (I've previously indicated that I'd have voted YES if I had a vote). But let's just say that I've yet to see someone who had problems getting votes come here and say "This time the voters were right and I'm cancelling my security as it wasn't up to scratch." ALL issuers who don't get votes as fast as they'd like are going to blame the voters - so when it happens (as is the case here) it doesn't actually shed any light on the situation - as you'd be saying it whether your asset should have been approved or not.
I would actually appreciate if there was even sensible No-votes. I wish to offer a good asset (and even suggested to implement a sort of guarantee, as described in my thread) but there simply isn't feedback beyond "I wouldn't buy, it's too expensive". The comments beyond that have been addressed (No immediate hashing explained by a bonus period, bonds never returning principal explained by explicit contract change, rebranding to mining contract, etc).
I react to the feedback I'm given; in fact, if I was actually willing to 'cheat' I would just have bought the final vote myself.
Right now, however, 80% of voters say Yes. Which means nothing.
At root the problem is money. To have securities properly checked is potentially expensive - you need multiple people doing it (to avoid bias) and those capable of doing it properly aren't going to be cheap. If some panel of suitable people were to be paid to screen securities then the registration fee would need to rise significantly. And that's where the problem comes - because most issuers believe their contract is already fine. So why would they pay a large fee to BTC-TC to have some panel agree with them when they could list on Bitfunder much cheaper?
This is a valid point, but on the other hand, I would much rather pay 5 peole 1BTC (of three people 1.6BTC) to have a guaranteed outcome than to throw 5BTC to someone who doens't have to bother and still get my money. In fact, I would double my payment if I knew there was an outcome (even if it wasn't positive).
BTC-TC and Bitfunder compete with one another in part on price - neither can afford to raise their listing fees if the other doesn't.
The starting point for improved standards (both in approving worthy listings and rejecting bad ones) would, in my view, be for burnside and Ukyo to agree that they'll BOTH raise their listing fees significantly. Then they'd have the budget to do more DD on listings. Until then BTC-TC is limited to doing whatever can be done for free - which means unpaid volunteers who may well not be competent.
It still doesn't address the question of what the listing fee gets you. Right now, it gets you nothing, unless someone happens to be interested or thinks that the volume will give them personal benefits. Right now, there is no incentive to vote at all except for guaranteed high-volume assets.
.b