I ran some numbers during some down time and want to provide a quick update for everyone that likes seeing the data.
Voting Power
Last week, we had 50 voters with 977.91 combined voting power that wouldn’t be able to participate under the >10% only rule. Today that is now 74 voters with 1436.41 combined voting power. This is just about 20% of quorum using the “All nodes eligible” strategy.
Related, only 13 voters that voted in the RocketSplit poll also voted in the new polls but are currently under 10%. That’s up slightly from 10 last time, but does lend evidence to the notion I heard in Discord that people tend to “check out” if the vote is very one-sided (or they just don’t find the proposal interesting enough to state a position perhaps).
Delegates
The majority of the large delegates have the same number of constituents today as they did last week, though for each of them, the number of constituents that are now below 10% has increased due to the latest ratio movement.
My script checks for voting overrides by determining if any of a delegate’s constituents explicitly voted for a different choice than their delegate. At this time, all of the large delegates (outside of myself) have changed their vote to “All nodes eligible”. As a result, I don’t see any overrides which means all of the overrides also voted for “All nodes eligible” prior to the delegates changing their votes.
Legitimacy
Last week, 2 voters voted in the “10% only” poll but not the “All nodes eligible” poll. Today that has increased to 3. Their combined voting power is only 85 right now so it’s not particularly impactful. Some people suggested they may simply be confused which seems plausible.
There remains only a single voter that voted differently between the polls with a voting power of 17, so I am discarding it. For all intents and purposes the legitimacy of the voting hasn’t been polluted.
Feedback
I initially asked for some more feedback from people who voted for the “>10% only” option so I could better understand the position in order to make my decision. I did receive some of it, both in here and in the Discord server, which was helpful to me. One of the more surprising things was that several people voted for “>10% only” because they thought it was the status quo; it was their understanding that this was how it was done throughout all of Redstone and we were simply voting to give them an ability they didn’t already have due to ratio movement.
I want to highlight this and make it very clear: the “>10% only” option is not the status quo. For all of Redstone, which is largely when the pDAO kind of materialized, all nodes were eligible to vote on everything. Regardless of whether or not the contracts followed the original design intent, this is a hard truth. This vote isn’t about granting people power they didn’t originally have; in “fixing the bug” during Atlas, voters lost power they did originally have. There is a difference between the two and despite several prominent voices asking people to ignore the past and focus on the future, several voters seem to be doing the opposite and voting for “>10% only” because they think it was how things worked and it will be easier to keep it the way it has been. Merits of that argument aside, it isn’t valid because “All nodes eligible” is, in fact, how things worked throughout the bulk of Rocket Pool’s pDAO history.
Conclusion
While the protocol’s quorum itself isn’t immediately threatened with either strategy, the loss of voting power to node operators that previously had it combined with the misinformation that “>10% only” was the status quo has given me the supplemental feedback I requested in my original post to make a decision. I will be changing my vote to “All nodes eligible” as that does match the status quo and thus is what I believe many “>10% only” voters intended to do.