Commons Upgrade Parameter Runoff - 4.20 Public Open Meets Ostrom’s $1M Hatch, Fledge & Fly!

[kristoferlund]

Disclaimer: I did not write this proposal, @Tamara did? I am posting the proposal text here to raise awareness and hopefully to drum up some support.

4.20 Public Open Meets Ostrom’s $1M Hatch, Fledge & Fly!

What is the overall Commons Configuration strategy?

Based on Sunday’s debates and, in particular, feedback from PaulH, PhilH, Simon de la Rouviere and Decentralized SDGs I am incorporating new thinking about the params into the original proposal.

Here are the main points:
Hatchers are in this for the long term. I am not changing the Freeze & Thaw of 39 and 65. With the other changes, the floor will remain above the Hatcher price of 1wxdai for 1.5 years, so that floor was even extended.
Opening price upped to 2.71. The challenge was to balance sufficiently funding the Common Pool without torpedoing the Reserve Ratio at a higher opening.
The “public” opening price (after the TEC’s initial-buy) will be 4.20 and that is a meme everyone loves.
Letting go of the 1M target for the Commons Pool. But we will have 927K available on day 1 so it is also not that far off.
The Reserve Ratio is 7.14% but that’s the tradeoff I made for a higher opening price.
I am removing the idea of step-changing tributes. First of all, there is no way to ensure it will happen. It is an unenforceable element in any proposal. Token holders will be different at the time the votes happen. That token holders will lower the entry tribute and RAISE the exit tribute (directly affecting their token holdings) is too wishful thinking even if it is has logical merit. If the community decided to do that, great, but we can’t bank on it.
Setting the Entry and Exit to 12 and 8 which feels like the right balance to start with and the community can evaluate the results over the first months to determine whether or not we will want to change them.
Changing the TAO voting after seeing the value of having a slightly lower support required and quorum. I also took 1 day off the vote duration. Let’s not hinder ourselves by making votes too hard to pass. At 77% support required, it would take 23% no votes to block a change to the DAO. Its not so much that it will divide the community and no so little that it could happen often.
Standing by the params in CV. I’d like to see ambitious projects with proved leadership and teams get funded. With Hatcher tokens frozen we make up the lions share of voters. We know the reputation of those that will be proposing for funding. We know who delivers.
Allowing funding votes to pass in less than one day is a terrible disservice to our global community. Every TEC token holder should have the chance to see a proposal in their daytime hours.

---

Did you know that from hatching to leaving the nest a bird can increase its weight by as much as 10 times?

Influenced and inspired by:

#113 - “The Fledge”
#74 - $1 Gambit for $1,000,000 Goldilocks Orogeny
#109 - The Bolshevik’s Gambit fork with Revolutionary Opening Price and Iron Curtain Conviction Voting
#124 - Montaña Rusa: The Communist Roller-Coaster

FORK THIS PROPOSAL (link)

Summary

Module 1: Token Freeze & Token Thaw

Parameter	Value
Token Freeze	39 Weeks
Token Thaw	65 Weeks
Opening Price	2.71 wxDAI

Module 2: Augmented Bonding Curve

Parameter	Value
Commons Tribute	70.00%
Entry Tribute	12.00%
Exit Tribute	8.00%
*Reserve Ratio	7.14%

*This is an output. Learn more about the Reserve Ratio here.

Module 3: Tao Voting

Parameter	Value
Support Required	77%
Minimum Quorum	7%
Vote Duration	5 day(s)
Delegated Voting Period	3 day(s)
Quiet Ending Period	2 day(s)
Quiet Ending Extension	3 day(s)
Execution Delay	1 day(s)

Module 4: Conviction Voting

Parameter	Value
Conviction Growth	14 day(s)
Minimum Conviction	5.0%
Spending Limit	20.0%

Module 1: Token Freeze and Token Thaw

Strategy:

Hatchers are in this for the long term. I am not changing the Freeze & Thaw of 39 and 65. With the other changes, the floor will remain above the Hatcher price of 1wxdai for 1.5 years, so that floor was even extended.

In large part, our Hatch was based on the premise that Hatchers are commitment the long term, mission driven goals over short term individual gains. So I’m advocating for a longish thaw. One that will give the TEC a floor above the Hatch price for the entire first year. Kudos to The Fledge (#113) for the “hatch, fledge” analogy. Hatch, fledge, fly!

Did you know that from hatching to leaving the nest a bird can increase its weight by as much as 10 times?

With the freeze/thaw at 39/65, Hatchers tokens begin to thaw at 9 months and by the end of the first year, 20% of Hatchers tokens will be unfrozen.

We are not greedy. We envision a world where ethical and resilient economic systems benefit societies. We know it will take us time to make that happen and that having a secure floor for one full yer will provide needed security to take our next bold steps. This gives us a year to build our reputation, strategies and agility in whatever market conditions we face.

Parameter	Value
Token Freeze	39 Weeks
Token Thaw	65 Weeks
Opening Price	2.71 wxDAI

Hatcher’s TEC Release Schedule

This is the release schedule for TEC that was given to Hatchers. Their TEC will start out frozen and then slowly become liquid according to the graph above.

Token Release Timeline

Duration	% of Tokens Released	Price Floor of Token
3 months	0.00%	2.71 wxDAI
6 months	0.00%	2.71 wxDAI
9 months	0.00%	2.71 wxDAI
1 year	20.00%	2.17 wxDAI
1.5 years	60.00%	1.08 wxDAI
2 years	100.00%	0.00 wxDAI
3 years	100.00%	0.00 wxDAI
4 years	100.00%	0.00 wxDAI
5 years	100.00%	0.00 wxDAI

Module 2: Augmented Bonding Curve (ABC)

Strategy:

• Opening price upped to 2.71. The challenge was to balance sufficiently funding the Common Pool without torpedoing the Reserve Ratio at a higher opening.
• The “public” opening price (after the TEC’s initial-buy) will be 4.20 and that is a meme everyone loves.
• Letting go of the 1M target for the Commons Pool. But we will have 927K available on day 1 so it is also not that far off.
• The Reserve Ratio is 7.14% but that’s the tradeoff I made for a higher opening price.
• I am removing the idea of step-changing tributes. First of all, there is no way to ensure it will happen. It is an unenforceable element in any proposal. Token holders will be different at the time the votes happen. That token holders will lower the entry tribute and RAISE the exit tribute (directly affecting their token holdings) is too wishful thinking even if it is has logical merit. If the community decided to do that, great, but we can’t bank on it.
• Setting the Entry and Exit to 12 and 8 which feels like the right balance to start with and the community can evaluate the results over the first months to determine whether or not we will want to change them.

----- made some updates to the below —
The psychological impact of 1M in the Commons pool is no small trifle. That’s 1M allocated directly to funding proposals that serve our mission. With a must-have of 1M in the Commons pool, I looked to find the right balance between the Commons Tribute (sourced from existing Hatchers) and Entry/Exit Tribute (to be sourced from future TEC token holders).

Unless we are setting the entry/exit to near-zero we should expect that future TEC token holders are here for the impact to be made and a belief in what we are doing. Any non-zero tribute will be a deterrent to the average speculator.

Here I nod again to #113 and appreciate very much their doubling down on the impact investment angle. In their words: “​​The 80% initial tribute makes us unabashedly an impact investment. Impact investors care about impact and don’t want to pay to fund reserves to lower the volatility. Another effect of the low reserve is high slippage, which makes it expensive and thus unattractive for non-aligned, purely speculative whales to suddenly buy up large shares in ways that might harm the mission and the community. Impact investors will care less about slippage, since that money goes to the TEC, which they are backing for impact. Oh, did I mention it’s a million dollar fund. Nice.

Yeah, 30% entry tribute is a big cut. But remember, we’re an impact investment. We pitch that the 30% is an investment that they make in public goods and we take it off the top while they’re still excited. There’s no exit tribute. We get the investment up front, not when they’re trying to get out and may have reasons for leaving anyway.”

Parameter	Value
Commons Tribute	70.00%
Entry Tribute	12.00%
Exit Tribute	8.00%
*Reserve Ratio	7.14%

*This is an output. Learn more about the Reserve Ratio here.

Allocation of Funds	wxDAI
Common Pool (Before Initial Buy)	882856.50
Reserve (Before Initial Buy)	378367.07
Common Pool (After Initial Buy)	912856.50
Reserve (After Initial Buy)	598367.07

TEC Price vs ABC Reserve Holdings

The ABC mints and burns TEC tokens, the price of the TEC token is dependent on the funds that is held in the Reserve. This graph shows how the ABC’s Price for TEC tokens changes with the ABC’s Reserve Balance. The Initial Buy that will happen at launch is highlighted.

Example Transaction Data

Tx	Reserve	Total Supply	Price	Amount In	Tribute	Amount Out	New Price	Slippage
0	378367.07	1956421.69	2.71	250000.00 wxDAI	30000.0	65050.92 TEC	4.15	19.87%
1	598367.07	2021472.61	4.15	5000.00 wxDAI	600.0	1057.20 TEC	4.18	0.34%
2	602767.07	2022529.81	4.18	100000.00 wxDAI	12000.0	19764.97 TEC	4.74	6.20%
3	690767.07	2042294.77	4.74	3000.00 TEC	1690.01	12393.37 wxDAI	4.65	0.95%
4	676683.7	2039294.77	4.65	5000.00 wxDAI	600.0	943.45 TEC	4.68	0.30%
5	681083.7	2040238.23	4.68	100000.00 wxDAI	12000.0	17769.51 TEC	5.24	5.54%
6	769083.7	2058007.73	5.24	3000.00 TEC	1867.38	13694.13 wxDAI	5.14	0.94%
7	753522.18	2055007.73	5.14	5000.00 wxDAI	600.0	854.04 TEC	5.17	0.27%
8	757922.18	2055861.77	5.17	100000.00 wxDAI	12000.0	16179.52 TEC	5.72	5.02%
9	845922.18	2072041.29	5.72	3000.00 TEC	2040.17	14961.24 wxDAI	5.61	0.94%
10	828920.77	2069041.29	5.61	2000.00 TEC	1338.89	9818.51 wxDAI	5.54	0.63%
11	817763.37	2067041.29	5.54	5000000.00 wxDAI	600000.0	292280.96 TEC	30.99	63.17%
12	5217763.37	2359322.25	30.99	1000000.00 wxDAI	120000.0	26387.73 TEC	35.82	7.07%

ABC Overview

Reserve (wxDai)	Supply (TEC)	Price (wxDai/TEC)	Market cap
10,000	1,509,647	0.09	140,215.88
50,000	1,693,328	0.41	700,717.39
100,000	1,779,188	0.79	1,401,337.53
200,000	1,869,407	1.50	2,802,599.59
300,000	1,924,287	2.18	4,203,835.30
400,000	1,964,202	2.85	5,605,101.51
500,000	1,995,730	3.51	7,006,338.08
600,000	2,021,866	4.16	8,407,590.33
700,000	2,044,232	4.80	9,808,899.10
800,000	2,063,805	5.43	11,210,133.66
900,000	2,081,225	6.06	12,611,371.42
1,000,000	2,096,932	6.68	14,012,571.13
1,250,000	2,130,593	8.22	17,515,772.60
1,500,000	2,158,494	9.74	21,018,781.81
1,750,000	2,182,372	11.24	24,522,045.83
2,000,000	2,203,268	12.72	28,025,192.01
2,500,000	2,238,634	15.65	35,031,353.26
3,000,000	2,267,952	18.54	42,037,674.20
3,500,000	2,293,038	21.39	49,043,732.00
4,000,000	2,314,995	24.21	56,050,448.82
5,000,000	2,352,155	29.79	70,062,628.97
7,500,000	2,421,211	43.41	105,094,427.65
10,000,000	2,471,433	56.70	140,125,702.74
15,000,000	2,543,990	82.62	210,188,288.63
20,000,000	2,596,758	107.92	280,250,674.56
50,000,000	2,772,237	252.73	700,629,155.30
100,000,000	2,912,816	481.06	1,401,252,752.99

Module 3: Tao Voting

Strategy:

PhilH challenged this the first time I shared it in a debate and I appreciate that. It made me think again and see the value of having a slightly lower support required and quorum. I also took 1 day off the vote duration.

Changing the TAO voting after seeing the value of having a slightly lower support required and quorum. I also took 1 day off the vote duration. Let’s not hinder ourselves by making votes too hard to pass. At 77% support required, it would take 23% no votes to block a change to the DAO. It’s not so much that it will divide the community and no so little that it could happen often.

Parameter	Value
Support Required	77%
Minimum Quorum	7%
Vote Duration	5 day(s)
Delegated Voting Period	3 day(s)
Quiet Ending Period	2 day(s)
Quiet Ending Extension	3 day(s)
Execution Delay	1 day(s)

Tao Voting Timeline From Proposal To Execution

This shows how the timeline stacks up for yes/no time based votes that can change the configuration after launch.

Timeline Data

# of Quiet Ending Extensions	No Extensions	With 1 Extension	With 2 Extensions
Time to Vote on Proposals	5 days	8 days	11 days
Time to Review a Delegates Vote	2 days	5 days	8 days
Time to Execute a Passing Proposal	6 days	9 days	12 days

Module 4: Conviction Voting

Strategy:

There is a conversation about the TE Academy proposal that shapes my thinking here. Knowing their longer financial runway facilitates funding roles to execute their vision. So, for example, requesting a grant for 6 months out versus month-by-month would be the difference between only being able to assure someone’s role month-to-month versus offering a longer term assurance of compensation to a new hire. This is big for our bootstrapping projects!

Low spending limits act as a sort of check-and-balance on projects as they will need to prove continuous delivery by requesting small amounts periodically. There is a real advantage to that but I feel that makes it administratively difficult for larger, more ambitious projects like the TE Academy to depend on funding from us. And for the voters, it will exhaust our attention to have a constant stream of smaller proposals.

High spending limits here might pose a risk but as #124 points out, we have Celeste. We should be able to rely on Celeste to arbitrate anyone acting in bad faith. In the end, I believe it will better serve our goal of advancing Token Engineering than a low spending limit.

Finally, that any proposal will require > 24 hours to pass is a courtesy to the entire community.

Parameter	Value
Conviction Growth	14 day(s)
Minimum Conviction	5.0%
Spending Limit	20.0%

Minimum Percent of Voting Tokens Needed to Pass Funding Requests

This shows how the minimum percent of tokens needed to pass proposals after 2 weeks varies with the percent of the Common Pool funds being requested.

Example Funding Request Data

Proposal	Requested Amount (wxDAI)	Common Pool (wxDAI)	Effective supply (TEC)	Tokens Needed To Pass (TEC)
1	1,000	100,000	1,500,000	83102
2	5,000	100,000	1,500,000	133333
3	25,000	100,000	1,500,000	Not possible
4	1,000	750,000	1,500,000	76010
5	5,000	750,000	1,500,000	80261
6	25,000	750,000	1,500,000	108000
7	150,000	865,213	1,500,000	Not possible

FORK THIS PROPOSAL (link)

Parameter Definitions

Token Freeze and Token Thaw

• Token Freeze: 39 weeks, meaning that 100% of TEC tokens minted for Hatchers will remain locked from being sold or transferred for 39 weeks. They can still be used to vote while frozen.
• Token Thaw: 65 weeks, meaning the Hatchers frozen tokens will start to become transferable at a steady rate starting at the end of Token Freeze and ending 65 weeks later.
• Opening Price: 2.71 wxDAI, meaning for the initial buy, the first TEC minted by the Augmented Bonding Curve will be priced at 2.71 wxDAI making it the price floor during the Token Freeze.

Augmented Bonding Curve (ABC)

• Commons Tribute: 70.00%, which means that 70.00% of the Hatch funds (882856.50 wxDAI) will go to the Common Pool and 30.00% (378367.07 wxDAI) will go to the ABC’s Reserve.
• Entry Tribute: 12.00% meaning that from every BUY order on the ABC, 12.00% of the order value in wxDAI is subtracted and sent to the Common Pool.
• Exit Tribute: 8.00% meaning that from every SELL order on the ABC, 8.00% of the order value in wxDAI is subtracted and sent to the Common Pool.

Tao Voting

• Support Required: 77%, which means 77% of all votes must be in favor of a proposal for it to pass.
• Minimum Quorum: 7%, meaning that 7% of all tokens need to have voted on a proposal in order for it to become valid.
• Vote Duration: 5 day(s), meaning that eligible voters will have 5 day(s) to vote on a proposal.
• Delegated Voting Period is set for 3 day(s), meaning that Delegates will have 3 day(s) to use their delegated voting power to vote on a proposal.
• Quiet Ending Period: 2 day(s), this means that 2 day(s) before the end of the Vote Duration, if the vote outcome changes, the Quiet Ending Extension will be triggered.
• Quiet Ending Extension: 3 day(s), meaning that if the vote outcome changes during the Quiet Ending Period, an additional 3 day(s) will be added for voting.
• Execution Delay: 1 day(s), meaning that there is an 1 day delay after the vote is passed before the proposed action is executed.

Conviction Voting

• Conviction Growth: 14 day(s), meaning that voting power will increase by 50% every 14 days that they are staked behind a proposal, so after 10 days, a voters voting power will have reached 75% of it’s maximum capacity.
• Minimum Conviction: 5.0%, this means that to pass any funding request it will take at least 5.0% of the actively voting TEC tokens.
• The Spending Limit: 20.0%, which means that no more than 20.0% of the total funds in the Common Pool can be funded by a single proposal.

Advanced Settings*

Parameter	Value
HNY Liquidity	100 wxDAI
Garden Liquidity	1 TEC
Virtual Supply	1 TEC
Virtual Balance	1 wxDAI
Transferable	True
Token Name	Token Engineering Commons
Token Symbol	TEC
Proposal Deposit	200 wxDAI
Challenge Deposit	400 wxDAI
Settlement Period	5 days
Minimum Effective Supply	1.0%
Hatchers Rage Quit	60000 wxDAI
Initial Buy	250000 wxDAI

*Learn more about Advanced Settings on the TEC forum

FORK THIS PROPOSAL (link)

[kristoferlund]

The main reason I support this proposal is this:

There is no reason for selling ourselves short. No obvious advantage. A market cap / valuation of the TEC at launch that is way lower than how the market perceives us serves no purpose.

How much is the TEC worth then?

We don’t know. Perhaps we could have / should have conducted some sort of price discovery?

But, we didn’t.

Current no 1 on Tokenlog, Goldilocks’ $1 bet for $1 mil to Advance Token Engineering, values the TEC to just above $3 million after initial buy in.

Based on the current market dynamics and valuations of other projects I think that is definitely too low.

The above proposal would place the valuation at around $9 million. Still not a crazy high valuation but more in line with the current market sentiment.

Support 4.20 Public Open Meets Ostrom’s $1M Hatch, Fledge & Fly!, don’t undervalue token engineering!

[Tamara]

Dropping the original post (before the 420 modification) in here which has relevant comments to this proposal too.

Ostrom’s $1,000,000 Hatch, Fledge & Fly! (Commons config proposal #126)

I’m sorry! I would have made this shorter but I ran out of time! (A phrase attributed to Blaise Pascal and Mark Twain and Benjamin Franklin and Woodrow Wilson and it never let me down.) Here are the pieces that matter most and describe best the choices made. Looking forward to feedback here or in an upcoming debate! DMs are open if you are feeling shy but still want to kick the tires on proposal #126 together. Inspired and influenced by the following proposals: #113 - “The Fledge” #74 - $1 …

[gideonro]

Like @kristoferlund, I’m a fan of this proposal because it doesn’t undersell the value of TEC – and also because I think it gives us a nice transition period of relative stability as we grow and develop.

Reading the Voter Pamphlet (which is awesome work, btw!), I too became concerned about the risks that this proposal may lock newcomers out of governance (slides 15-20).

After wrestling with it, I’ve personally concluded that these risks will moderate over time as Hatchers sell their tokens. Sure, many will HODL, but for a variety of reasons – many will also sell. As that happens, it will free up ownership and allow for the gradual and graceful entry of governance by new generations of investors.

In short, I see this as just another aspect of the “fledging” process - the gradual transition from the Trusted Seed of the Hatchers to a more open market.

[Tamara]

Same concern.

The goal of launching with a higher market value of the TEC - given the intellectual capital, the know-how, our unique culture and community - has introduced this unintended consequence. (The original proposal before 420 had a market cap much more in line with the rest. This tweak was intended to see how much more value we can attribute to the TEC without breaking the reserve ratio or over depleting the Commons pool. A real balancing act.)

What most concerns me is that contributors rewarded with TEC for their efforts would have a disproportionately smaller governance stake. Fewer tokens issued at higher prices. That does not feel fair to anyone coming in and may even serve as a deterrent to participation. On the flipside, Hatchers would be steering the ship but also bound to their low time preference by the longest freeze and thaw of all the proposals. What is actually appealing about this design is that the governance of the TEC cannot be hijacked by a deep pocketed single individual or group. That it is effectively impossibly to buy as many tokens as Hatchers have is an very interesting outcome. While it was not intended it did make me look back at the cost to buy 50% or 100% of the tokens held by Hatchers in other proposals. Some feel like we might be making it too easy. (This was the point made in the debate the night before to first vote closed and one of the inspirations for the 420 tweak).

Thanks to @Juankbell for beating the drum on this and running the simulations that are included in the voters pamphlet.

As far as I can tell there is only one possible solution: launching with the ABC and shutting it down at some some point before the thaw. When: 3 months? 6 months? One year? I had been looking at the ABC as a price discovery mechanism but have since had that thinking broadened to look at it as a supply discovery mechanism. I’ve been querying greater minds than mine and very glad to hear people’s thoughts. Please pipe in!

It’s worth saying here that anything that I am getting wrong here I would be happy to get right. This is a learning process and I’m not married to any idea or any proposal specifically and driven only to develop deeper insight and understanding.

If only there was a non-monetary governance token! This has come up before. It has been proposed to create a non-monetary governance token to separate governance weight from price and, frankly, that would be very useful but, as far as I know, there remains non-trivial design and technical challenges to be worked out first. So that is not something in our toolbox for short or medium term solutions.

[gideonro]

Ah, I see. I was seeing this as a problem exclusively for new investors and that doesn’t bother me as much (for the reasons outlined above). I just hadn’t connected it to contributors, and now that I see that, I agree that that is not fair or acceptable.

One fix would be to intervene and create a few-minute window (with the exact timing of it unannounced) where the TEC is initially priced at the Hatcher price of 1:1 and do the initial buy-in. Then, close the window and take it to the 420 price. It would require a separate vote probably.

I don’t know enough yet about the ongoing budgeting process but would assume that this doesn’t solve future compensation/governance issuances. Maybe it’d give us enough time to figure out the alt governance tokens challenge you mention though.

Writing this, it feels like it’s just opening a can of worms though. It’s too bad. I really like this one. Luckily, there are other good options.

[Tamara]

If the governance-only token issue was solved we would be able to reward contributors with a more proportional amount of governance tokens plus a market-fair amount of TEC tokens. It would be the deus ex machina of 420!!!

[kristoferlund]

This is definitely something for some future version of the R.A.D.D tool - the Rewards Analytics and Distribution Dashboard! The dashboard becomes a fully onchain tool that integrates rewards streams from multiple sources and allocates both monetary and non-monetary tokens according to parameters set in place by the community. Easy peasy.

[Tamara]

Yesterday I thought it was a lost case but knowing this community’s capabilities and that we have already voted yes to separating the governance from the token price, I am back to supporting it as my first choice… and the second and third choice are the next two that don’t have any major blockers for me.

[Tamara]

I’ve been looking at the results and 1/2 of the highest token votes ranked 420 first. So I got curious. What’s going on? Is this a long tail thing? Why are there so many 1st choice votes for 420 and it shows 0% on snapshot? Wait, how does rank choice vote even work?

Who understands how rank choice votes? Can you explain why the results look like this:

When the total count of first choice votes look like this:

Lemme be honest, I didn’t understand. Digging in, it just looks like we can use a better UX design. The rank choice logic makes sense: keep redistributing the lowest of the votes until there are only the top 2. OK, cool.

Here is what I is missing: avoid information asymmetry by pushing more data to the edges (i.e., to the voters). How? Even something simple like this table and the table for the “minus-1” and the “minus-2” proposal cases could be helpful.

If it looks like there are only two proposals that can win, it becomes a question of which of these two proposals to vote for, right?

Here I am going to explain what I understand so someone can jump in and correct any misunderstanding I have.

1. At the start of a vote, <actually I am not sure, anyone can fill in the blank? Probably something like all % are shown>
2. When one proposal reaches a 50% threshold, the following happens:

• The proposal with the lowest # of votes has their #2 votes allocated to that proposal.
  So, with 5 proposals: instead of 5 proposals, there are 4 with one redistribution
• Next, the same thing happens with the next lowest.
  So, with 5 proposals: instead of 5 proposals there are 3 with two redistributions
• Rinse and repeat
  So with 5 proposals: instead of 5 proposals, there are only 2 with three redistributions

And that last one is what we actually are seeing on snapshot. Unfortunately for the voters it may look like there are actually only 2 proposals to vote for because all the rest are 0%.

Thanks for reading this far!

Also, thanks to @ZeptimusQ for sharing this video which others may find useful too: What is Ranked Choice Voting? - YouTube

[Tamara]

I woke up with with this picture in my head: showing the recalibration between knockout rounds. Since we’ll be keeping rank choice in our toolbox, the effort to make the results more transparent should be worth it. A lot less confusion for those voting. Though I think is isn’t something we would be able to do but up to snapshot to dev.

[kristoferlund]

I agree. The current way of displaying the results are counter intuitive at best and will dramatically affect the voting outcome at worst.

When I saw the results my gut reaction was … oh, this only stands between Goldilocks and Bolsheviks Gambit. And then, second realisation … weird that no other alternatives has any votes.

I’ll read up on the details of ranked choice voting to understand this better next time. There is definitely room for improving how the results of ongoing votes are communicated though.