Re: [BTC-TC] Deprived Mining Speculation (DMS)

The motion to allow investment in CIPHERMINE bonds didn't receive enough votes for an outcome to be determined (although a clear majority of those voted went for YES it needs to break the 50% mark to be a valid result). Basically there wasn't a valid quorum.

I've put the motion up again for slightly longer this time - but if the majority of investors aren't around then obviously it'll not receive sufficient votes again. In which case at least I know not to spend time trying to find investment opportunities (suitable investments are generally not going to available at face price for too long - so leaving a motion up for weeks isn't a viable option).

I'm sorry, I know how much it is frustrating when something like that happens :/

How about lowering the quorum?
I mean, lowering it a lot, like 15% instead of 50%.

Furthermore a quorum of 50% is plain wrong, since it splits the "no" votes in "plain no" + "didn't vote", so that if you want to say "no", you have to game the system and try to guess if it's better not to vote or to vote "no".

As far as I know, the requirement for a DMS motion to pass is for more than 50% of the shares voting "yes". So a "no" vote, an "abstain" vote or simply not voting all have the same effect.

Well the contract says "For the first two of these only a simple majority of DMS.SELLING is required".

There's no quorum defined in the contract but in practical terms at least 50% of shares have to vote for a simple majority to be achieved. No votes, abstains and not voting don't have exactly the same effect.

Abstains reduce the number of Yes votes required - it's a means by which someone can indicate that their shares don't count towards the vote at all.

A large number of NO votes means I abandon whatever was being voted on. If the same shares didn't vote instead then I'd put the motion back up again (as may have happened here) as there wasn't any indication of opposition to the motion. So voting NO and not voting has identical impact on the outcome of a motion - but a different impact on how I interpret the results and thus act going forward.

There's no point even discussing changing the voting rules - as that would require a vote to pass by an even larger majority (and not just on SELLING but on MINING as well). And any change that requires less than a proper majority would need other changes as well - such as defined minimum voting periods (which would have to be significantly longer).