For those who anticipated that the SPO poll results would be the definitive and sole factor to determine which changes to implement, I want to highlight a few crucial points:
-
The poll took place before the Voltaire era, and there is no established formula to decide the votes. Therefore, it remains undecided whether we should consider stake-based results, number of SPO votes, number of delegators, amount of pledge, or a combination of these metrics. Any arguments based on using one or a combination of these metrics overlook this fact.
-
Even if we knew which metrics of the poll results would determine the outcome, there was no quorum to decide if the poll could be used at all.
-
Additionally, there were no threshold rules in place to determine when a certain outcome would prevail over others, like requiring K=1000 to have x% more votes than K=500.
Overall, it was clear that this poll could not objectively decide the actual changes. Thus, the final decision would need to be made by subjective parties such as the committee and the founding members, relying on the poll as one input among others and incorporating their views and expertise.
Moving forward, I would like to emphasize that the poll results show overwhelming support for lowering minpoolcost, regardless of how one interprets the data. Furthermore, no convincing arguments against reducing these fees have been presented. Therefore, deciding to lower the minpoolcost appears to be a clear choice.
However, the case for increasing K was not as straightforward. The poll results did not show overwhelming support for this change from all aspects. Moreover, there have been multiple compelling arguments against increasing K, which I personally support. I provided an elaborate and quantitative analysis to illustrate why increasing K might not be the obvious choice. You can find the analysis on the forum here:
Despite sharing this analysis, it received no comments. Taking into account all these factors and setting aside political arguments – as I am not politically inclined (i.e., committee members’ personal votes, the criteria for members’ selection, and the lack of transparency in meeting reporting) – I concur with the committee’s recommendations.