In my opinion the only effective meaningful and important metric is stake. Not head counting, popularity or whatever else. People who have signed up for Cardano and PoS signed up for that, not any other “on-demand” replaced metric.
By looking at the stake results grouped by the 4 combined answers, there was a surprisingly balanced situation between two options at 27.6 vs 25.1% of support (1).
By grouping the answers by parameters (you “forgot” this in your screenshots ;- ) the results are different:
44.3% supporting keep k as is at 500 vs
41.0% supporting k increased to 1000. (3)
The support for halving minPoolCost is clear in both views. (2)
Hence the statement and the widespread opinion in the parameter committee: “…the results are not conclusive - especially for keeping or increasing k”
So here, based on the surprisingly close result, a situation was created that actually enables exactly what was one of the main goals of this first poll: to recognize, based on practical hands-on experiences, which things in the design of CIP-1694 need to be clarified and defined more precisely, e.g. what kind quorum and clarity is needed in a voting process.
If you are interested in these topic and contribute with opinions and ideas, there are others who already did, eg @HeptaSean at