I think the biggest problem is -- voting is confusing. I'm fairly technically inclined, but I still have difficulty understanding just what the hell the client's talking about when it says "you are not voting with all of your stake"...
Needs to be better streamlined.
We need to figure out a way to provide incentive for shareholders to vote. The biggest issue I see is with 13.06% of the money supply, someone could perform a 51% attack. This is obviously much less ideal than 51% of the money supply. There are a lot of other issues pertaining to voter apathy as well. No offense to those that have tried organizing these things, but I'm not talking about some silly "election week", campaigning, or mumble hangouts. People need incentive to vote or else they never will. We need to figure out a way that shareholders can be paid to vote. IE. a percentage of fees.. a percentage of dilution.. a little extra dilution.. a delegate... somehow, some way... people need incentive to vote. The current system is not working, the delegate with the most votes has 13.06%. How is this OK with everyone??!?
I think the biggest problem is -- voting is confusing. I'm fairly technically inclined, but I still have difficulty understanding just what the hell the client's talking about when it says "you are not voting with all of your stake"...
Needs to be better streamlined.
I'd suggest half of unused votes to be assigned to delegates sorted by performance AND 3% max pay.We need to figure out a way to provide incentive for shareholders to vote. The biggest issue I see is with 13.06% of the money supply, someone could perform a 51% attack. This is obviously much less ideal than 51% of the money supply. There are a lot of other issues pertaining to voter apathy as well. No offense to those that have tried organizing these things, but I'm not talking about some silly "election week", campaigning, or mumble hangouts. People need incentive to vote or else they never will. We need to figure out a way that shareholders can be paid to vote. IE. a percentage of fees.. a percentage of dilution.. a little extra dilution.. a delegate... somehow, some way... people need incentive to vote. The current system is not working, the delegate with the most votes has 13.06%. How is this OK with everyone??!?
We could automagically set all the unused votes to random delegates (essentially raising the noise floor).
This is essentially what you would get anyway if you artificially motivate people to vote who don't care enough to study their options.
Now we have 100% voter "turnout". Are we any better off?
:)
I'd suggest half of unused votes to be assigned to delegates sorted by performance AND 3% max pay.That would raise the barrier for entry in the top 101 .. maybe too difficult to market a 100% payrate delegate (in the beginning)
I'd suggest half of unused votes to be assigned to delegates sorted by performance AND 3% max pay.We need to figure out a way to provide incentive for shareholders to vote. The biggest issue I see is with 13.06% of the money supply, someone could perform a 51% attack. This is obviously much less ideal than 51% of the money supply. There are a lot of other issues pertaining to voter apathy as well. No offense to those that have tried organizing these things, but I'm not talking about some silly "election week", campaigning, or mumble hangouts. People need incentive to vote or else they never will. We need to figure out a way that shareholders can be paid to vote. IE. a percentage of fees.. a percentage of dilution.. a little extra dilution.. a delegate... somehow, some way... people need incentive to vote. The current system is not working, the delegate with the most votes has 13.06%. How is this OK with everyone??!?
We could automagically set all the unused votes to random delegates (essentially raising the noise floor).
This is essentially what you would get anyway if you artificially motivate people to vote who don't care enough to study their options.
Now we have 100% voter "turnout". Are we any better off?
:)
We could automatically set all the unused votes to random delegates (essentially raising the noise floor).
This is essentially what you would get anyway if you artificially motivate people to vote who don't care enough to study their options.
Now we have 100% voter "turnout". Are we any better off?
:)
I guess we could have tiers of apathy:
1. The least a person can do is express trust in the source of their wallet, by merely downloading it. So that wallet can point to a default slate which expresses their preference to just trust the wallet provider they already have trusted with their private keys.
2. The next least a person can do is express trust in some other slate, by overriding their wallet's default slate and pointing to one provided by some celebrity or developer or personality you trust.
3. The next, next, least a person can do is override some entries in their hero-provided slate with a few delegates you happen to know.
4. The last level of least you can do is to become fully informed and hand-pick your top 101.
In the event of a crisis, a rebel leader can publish a slate and campaign to get everyone to switch slates.
It's more than a month(maybe two) since the last time I opened my wallet, I can't even remember what version I have installed.
I would like to update my votes more often but I'm lazy compiling every time a new version is out.
When we have a "final" and more stable version I think people will show more interest.
- Make it idiot proof
- Create a simple video explaining the need and tips on how to evaluate delegates
- Push out through twitter/newsletter
I guess we could have tiers of apathy:
1. The least a person can do is express trust in the source of their wallet, by merely downloading it. So that wallet can point to a default slate which expresses their preference to just trust the wallet provider they already have trusted with their private keys.
2. The next least a person can do is express trust in some other slate, by overriding their wallet's default slate and pointing to one provided by some celebrity or developer or personality you trust.
3. The next, next, least a person can do is override some entries in their hero-provided slate with a few delegates you happen to know.
4. The last level of least you can do is to become fully informed and hand-pick your top 101.
In the event of a crisis, a rebel leader can publish a slate and campaign to get everyone to switch slates.
Other than paying people to vote, this seems like the best solution so far. I actually really like this "tier of apathy" idea. You made my laugh irl... "the least a person can do... the next... the next, next... the next, next, next" :D
At a min we need to make it easier to vote. I don't view voter apathy as a bad thing in all cases. It is too hard to figure out how to vote. The thumbs up thumbs down would be great if it worked. I don't like the fact that I must select 101 different people in order for my vote to be counted. Why can I go through and thumb up a single delegate and the gui takes and votes my stake. Or I select 10 or 20 delegates with a check mark system and click vote stake and be done?You don't have to pick up all 101 delegates in order for your vote to be counted. One delegate is minimum so your vote can be counted. System prefers if you vote for all 101 delegates, but that doesn't mean that you need to vote for all 101 delegate.
Well... the main reason that led me to bring this up... I have been debating a lot of Bitcoin/Altcoin people as to the merits of DPoS versus PoW. I am telling a half truth when I tell them that someone needs to obtain 51% of the money supply to attack the network... due to voter apathy that is not the case. It is not only a security issue, it is a public perception issue of a possible security issue. If someone really advertised that instead you only need 14% of the money supply due to voter apathy, I think people will think more negatively of DPoS. How can we expect people to trust DPoS if it isn't as secure as it can theoretically be? IT doesn't look good in a debate when someone brings up that only 14% of the money supply is needed... they give me a hard enough time about 51% being bad enough.
You are right.At a min we need to make it easier to vote. I don't view voter apathy as a bad thing in all cases. It is too hard to figure out how to vote. The thumbs up thumbs down would be great if it worked. I don't like the fact that I must select 101 different people in order for my vote to be counted. Why can I go through and thumb up a single delegate and the gui takes and votes my stake. Or I select 10 or 20 delegates with a check mark system and click vote stake and be done?You don't have to pick up all 101 delegates in order for your vote to be counted. One delegate is minimum so your vote can be counted. System prefers if you vote for all 101 delegates, but that doesn't mean that you need to vote for all 101 delegate.
Making voting simpler is desirable, but even when it becomes so simple a caveman can do it, the most time consuming part will always remain: becoming informed.This is so true but the same argument can be made for VOTE. We want to make it easier for the masses to vote but in reality it not necessarily a good thing for the masses to vote.
At a min we need to make it easier to vote. I don't view voter apathy as a bad thing in all cases. It is too hard to figure out how to vote. The thumbs up thumbs down would be great if it worked. I don't like the fact that I must select 101 different people in order for my vote to be counted. Why can I go through and thumb up a single delegate and the gui takes and votes my stake. Or I select 10 or 20 delegates with a check mark system and click vote stake and be done?
Some interesting ideas:
- Slates should have 'owners'
- Slates should be 'subscribable'
- Users will subscribe to slates from trusted, public figures
- Users who subscribe to these slates are notified when changes occur
- Slate owners are given the option to write reasons why they are changing their slate
- If the user takes the time to review the change, then they can accept, deny, or make an amendment to the change
- If the user does not review the change after a given time period, it will automatically be set to accept
- Popular slates should be readily available within the client
Low voter turnout is a good thing. It means people aren't pissed off.
2. The next least a person can do is express trust in some other slate, by overriding their wallet's default slate and pointing to one provided by some celebrity or developer or personality you trust.
Some interesting ideas:
- Slates should have 'owners'
- Slates should be 'subscribable'
- Users will subscribe to slates from trusted, public figures
- Users who subscribe to these slates are notified when changes occur
- Slate owners are given the option to write reasons why they are changing their slate
- If the user takes the time to review the change, then they can accept, deny, or make an amendment to the change
- If the user does not review the change after a given time period, it will automatically be set to accept
- Popular slates should be readily available within the client
I like this. Representative democracy more effective than direct democracy.
Some interesting ideas:
- Slates should have 'owners'
- Slates should be 'subscribable'
- Users will subscribe to slates from trusted, public figures
- Users who subscribe to these slates are notified when changes occur
- Slate owners are given the option to write reasons why they are changing their slate
- If the user takes the time to review the change, then they can accept, deny, or make an amendment to the change
- If the user does not review the change after a given time period, it will automatically be set to accept
- Popular slates should be readily available within the client
I like this. Representative democracy more effective than direct democracy.
+1
If we're very very very lucky, we'll be able to get members to point to a guy and say 'I trust him to make good decisions about delegates, here's my proxy(slate)'. That is the very most we can hope for.
Some interesting ideas:
- Slates should have 'owners'
- Slates should be 'subscribable'
- Users will subscribe to slates from trusted, public figures
- Users who subscribe to these slates are notified when changes occur
- Slate owners are given the option to write reasons why they are changing their slate
- If the user takes the time to review the change, then they can accept, deny, or make an amendment to the change
- If the user does not review the change after a given time period, it will automatically be set to accept
- Popular slates should be readily available within the client
I like this. Representative democracy more effective than direct democracy.
+1
If we're very very very lucky, we'll be able to get members to point to a guy and say 'I trust him to make good decisions about delegates, here's my proxy(slate)'. That is the very most we can hope for.
The point is you shouldn't be trying to get lucky. You need to figure out a way to not have to have people vote unless they are naturally driven to by their own prerogative. Most people should never be bothered in the slightest. Even asking them to think about being bothered is unacceptable. When I buy stock in Google, I want to completely trust those really smart guys there to do a great job and do absolutely nothing myself. The most I want is to know I can vote and participate if I choose. It MUST NOT be necessary for the majority to participate for bitshares to function! This is critical.
When I buy stock in Google, I want to completely trust those really smart guys there to do a great job and do absolutely nothing myself.
Pragmatism.
I don't want to have to vote or think about voting ever. I should always be able to vote if I choose, but 99% of the time I don't want it to be even slightly present in my life. Humans are lazy and busy, they don't need or want anything else to do. A minority of people really care about this stuff, the politics, the ramifications for the future of man kind and freedom and finance. They should vote. I would love to see that happen, but not enough to do any work.
Owning/Using bitshares should be absolutely as easy as possible for as many people as possible. Who cares if a minority is in control as long as they are doing a good job and can always be voted out. I am here because I want to make money with the least effort possible. I am confident most people feel this way.
This is a product you are selling to people. A good, desirable product that will attract people should not add to the complications of their life, it should reduce them. You do want to attract people to use bitshares, right?
The minority of shareholders who care a lot. Not me.It is not that the 14% of stakeholders that are currently voting are doing a bad job. It is mainly that it is a security risk.
Unless things get extremely ridiculous and on the verge of collapse and people rally me and make a big scene to get my attention, then I do still have the right to vote with my stake and I do it.
The minority of shareholders who care a lot. Not me.
It is not that the 14% of stakeholders that are currently voting are doing a bad job. It is mainly that it is a security risk.
The minority of shareholders who care a lot. Not me.
No. The board of directors supervises.
The shareholders choose the board of directors.
The current bitshares model asks shareholders to vote for executives/employees (delegates) directly. Rather, it should ask shareholders to support directors (slate publishers). All the politics should be at that level - directors campaigning for shareholders' proxies, and delegates should only be asking for directors' support - not running campaigns themselves.
what about to pay the top x slate publishers?
How does forcing an uninformed voter to make an uninformed vote produce any value for anyone?
You can't force people to become more informed. They can just vote uninformed to avoid the penalty, or collect any incentive provided. Still no value.How does forcing an uninformed voter to make an uninformed vote produce any value for anyone?
The idea would be to force the uniformed to become informed, or at minimum more informed than they would otherwise be.
Imagine if US citizens were taxed at a higher rate if they elected not to vote; the general population would be orders of magnitude more informed on the political process.
Really, do folks have a right to the benefits of a democratic society if they cannot be bothered to vote?
Do BTS shareholders have a right to yield if they cannot be bothered to vote?
"Hey, use the system to transfer and store value. But if you want the benefits (yield) you need to participate (vote)."
How does forcing an uninformed voter to make an uninformed vote produce any value for anyone?
Imagine if US citizens were taxed at a higher rate if they elected not to vote; the general population would be orders of magnitude more informed on the political process.
Ok... new train of thought as to making it easier to vote. Assume someone is not voting for a full slate or any delegates. Feel free to suggest changes to this.. these are just suggestions. Let's call it the "voting wizard".Better line of thinking, look for ways to make participation easier and dependent on how much time or information a voter has to contribute.
Whenever the client launches it checks to see if they are voting a full slate of delegates.
If not, a screen pops up saying "You are not voting for a full slate of delegates, would you like to vote now?"
Click no... Nothing happens
Click yes... it brings you to the voting panel which automates the voting process like the installation of software. With the following steps:
1. "Would you like to pick delegates manually or choose from a slate of delegates?"
1a. If manually it goes to a screen similar to the current delegate panel with only one difference. Delegates are allowed to publish a short description of what their campaign is for.. Similar to publishing their version or price feeds. This way you never need to leave the client.
1b. If they choose to vote for a slate, then it goes to a slate listing screen. It should show who published the slate and allow for a field to be published that shows what their criteria is for picking delegates. Allow stakeholders to vote for which slates are most popular and order them from most pupil are to least popular. That way those that actually vote can choose which slate should be the default.
Optional: I like the idea someone mentioned... of providing incentive to make people vote. When someone goes to send a transaction and they aren't voting for a full slate.. charge them 10x the normal transaction fee. Ask them if they'd like to vote to bypass the bigger fee by voting, if yes send them to the "voting wizard". Have a way for delegates to tell if someone is voting or not, if they are not and if they don't pay the larger fee, then do not include their transactions into blocks.
Ok... new train of thought as to making it easier to vote. Assume someone is not voting for a full slate or any delegates. Feel free to suggest changes to this.. these are just suggestions. Let's call it the "voting wizard".
Whenever the client launches it checks to see if they are voting a full slate of delegates.
If not, a screen pops up saying "You are not voting for a full slate of delegates, would you like to vote now?"
Click no... Nothing happens (Or see optional below)
Click yes... it brings you to the voting panel which automates the voting process like the installation of software. With the following steps:
1. "Would you like to pick delegates manually or choose from a slate of delegates?"
1a. If manually it goes to a screen similar to the current delegate panel with only one difference. Delegates are allowed to publish a short description of what their campaign is for.. Similar to publishing their version or price feeds. This way you never have need to leave the client to evaluate delegates.
1b. If they choose to vote for a slate, then it goes to a slate listing screen. It should show who published the slate and allow for a field to be published that shows what their criteria is for picking delegates. Allow stakeholders to vote for which slates are most popular and order them from most popular to least popular. That way those that actually vote can choose which slate should be the default.
Optional: I like the idea someone mentioned... of providing incentive to make people vote. When someone goes to send a transaction and they aren't voting for a full slate.. charge them 10x the normal transaction fee. Ask them if they'd like to vote to bypass the bigger fee by voting, if yes send them to the "voting wizard". Have a way for delegates to tell if someone is voting or not, if they are not and if they don't pay the larger fee, then do not include their transactions into blocks.
My proposition is thus.... would it be feasible to have a splash page where all possible advantageous delegate features could be listed in the form of 'checkbox' type selection criteria. By this manner asharehodlercommunity member may simply select the features that best represent his or her wishes. Of course, the selections can be moified by individual at any time they choose to do so. They would select and forget. Perhaps reviewing their selections to reflect new features presented.
On the other side of the ledger, the delegate would select the features that he or she would adopt as part of their basket of goodies. When married together we would have 101 delegates that represent the most requested features
I could go on but I know how smart you guys are and if this is a road worth investigating then my contribution here is complete 8)
My proposition is thus.... would it be feasible to have a splash page where all possible advantageous delegate features could be listed in the form of 'checkbox' type selection criteria. By this manner asharehodlercommunity member may simply select the features that best represent his or her wishes. Of course, the selections can be moified by individual at any time they choose to do so. They would select and forget. Perhaps reviewing their selections to reflect new features presented.
On the other side of the ledger, the delegate would select the features that he or she would adopt as part of their basket of goodies. When married together we would have 101 delegates that represent the most requested features
I could go on but I know how smart you guys are and if this is a road worth investigating then my contribution here is complete 8)
I like this idea too. I don't really care how it is implemented, but voter apathy needs to be figured out. Saying it will probably work itself out over time does not work for me. Will we still be saying "it will work itself out over time" years from now? Let's work it out now... any security vulnerabilities should be taken seriously and taken care of if it is under our control to plug them. Voter apathy I feel like is a security vulnerability that we can plug. For all we know, one centralized exchange could have 14% of the money supply.. we could literally be one hack away from a possible attack. I realize we would fork and burn their stake, but it would be a serious black eye for Bitshares and DPoS if someone was able to attack it even in the slightest bit.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but with 14% of the money supply you could gain complete control of the network by not accepting transactions that vote the attacking delegates out. In that case we would need to fork, roll back the block chain, and burn the attacking stake.
We need to figure out a way to provide incentive for shareholders to vote. The biggest issue I see is with 13.06% of the money supply, someone could perform a 51% attack. This is obviously much less ideal than 51% of the money supply. There are a lot of other issues pertaining to voter apathy as well. No offense to those that have tried organizing these things, but I'm not talking about some silly "election week", campaigning, or mumble hangouts. People need incentive to vote or else they never will. We need to figure out a way that shareholders can be paid to vote. IE. a percentage of fees.. a percentage of dilution.. a little extra dilution.. a delegate... somehow, some way... people need incentive to vote. The current system is not working, the delegate with the most votes has 13.06%. How is this OK with everyone??!?
Do BTS shareholders have a right to yield if they cannot be bothered to vote?
How does forcing an uninformed voter to make an uninformed vote produce any value for anyone?
Do BTS shareholders have a right to yield if they cannot be bothered to vote?
I wasn't aware BTS earns yield, I thought that was just on bitassets? Bitasset holders definitely don't need to vote.
I'm not in favour of punishing with fines people for not voting. BTS holders just need to be able to be able to easily vote someone out if they are attacking the network and have the rest automated as much as possible. I don't know why delegates can't just be ranked algorithmically with using the fields on bitsharesblocks.com/delegates such as
- feed frequency
- number of active feeds
- reliability
- frequency of updates
- time running as delegate (they'd become more trusted over time, would be a v important factor to make attacks more expensive)
There could be an algorithmically produced top 101 slate which could be auto-voted on (i.e. not voted on) and give its effect a weighting of say 50/50 vs the active votes of the BTS holders. So if there is 15% active stake, the algorithmically defined stake gets 15% voting power automatically taken from the inactive stake, doubling the active stake (while decreasing the voters power by half). Let an algorithm take some of the load.
Or at the very least an algorithm could serve as a back up, so that if the active stake falls below a certain level, the algorithm could step in and do the voting on the BTS holders' behalf. The only way to trick the algorithm would be to run a fleet of very reliable delegates for a long period.... which might end up being cheaper than just buying up the BTS... not sure.
Well... the main reason that led me to bring this up... I have been debating a lot of Bitcoin/Altcoin people as to the merits of DPoS versus PoW. I am telling a half truth when I tell them that someone needs to obtain 51% of the money supply to attack the network... due to voter apathy that is not the case. It is not only a security issue, it is a public perception issue of a possible security issue. If someone really advertised that instead you only need 14% of the money supply due to voter apathy, I think people will think more negatively of DPoS. How can we expect people to trust DPoS if it isn't as secure as it can theoretically be? IT doesn't look good in a debate when someone brings up that only 14% of the money supply is needed... they give me a hard enough time about 51% being bad enough.
It's the same thing with our govt. It works good enough for me so I don't waste my time with it. If they ever really start effing up I'll take some time to exercise my right to vote to change things. This is going to end up a lot like that and it's o.k. It is a better system because it is sooooo easy for people to vote when they want.
Do BTS shareholders have a right to yield if they cannot be bothered to vote?
I wasn't aware BTS earns yield, I thought that was just on bitassets? Bitasset holders definitely don't need to vote.
I'm not in favour of punishing with fines people for not voting. BTS holders just need to be able to be able to easily vote someone out if they are attacking the network and have the rest automated as much as possible. I don't know why delegates can't just be ranked algorithmically with using the fields on bitsharesblocks.com/delegates such as
- feed frequency
- number of active feeds
- reliability
- frequency of updates
- time running as delegate (they'd become more trusted over time, would be a v important factor to make attacks more expensive)
There could be an algorithmically produced top 101 slate which could be auto-voted on (i.e. not voted on) and give its effect a weighting of say 50/50 vs the active votes of the BTS holders. So if there is 15% active stake, the algorithmically defined stake gets 15% voting power automatically taken from the inactive stake, doubling the active stake (while decreasing the voters power by half). Let an algorithm take some of the load.
Or at the very least an algorithm could serve as a back up, so that if the active stake falls below a certain level, the algorithm could step in and do the voting on the BTS holders' behalf. The only way to trick the algorithm would be to run a fleet of very reliable delegates for a long period.... which might end up being cheaper than just buying up the BTS... not sure.
Instead of voting for individual delegates, users should be presented with issues or categories. I think I mentioned this in a previous post. Categories should be presented that they can rank the importance of, or give give their own percentage. Like the way you select how much to invest in a particular type of fund in your 401K (high risk, mid-cap, emerging-market, etc). The user are presented with a list like investing in a Bitshares funds. They can allocate there votes by percentage.
Please rank the following criteria by percentage.
1) Performance 30%
2) Marketing 30%
3) Charity 10%
4) R&D 20%
5) Support 10%
The votes are then proportioned to the delegates or slates that meet those definition and have a good track record. The track record can be weighted by the those who receive direct votes from users. People are more likely to vote on issues than individuals because it's easier to grasp.
I think the biggest problem is -- voting is confusing. I'm fairly technically inclined, but I still have difficulty understanding just what the hell the client's talking about when it says "you are not voting with all of your stake"...
Needs to be better streamlined.
My proposition is thus.... would it be feasible to have a splash page where all possible advantageous delegate features could be listed in the form of 'checkbox' type selection criteria. By this manner asharehodlercommunity member may simply select the features that best represent his or her wishes. Of course, the selections can be moified by individual at any time they choose to do so. They would select and forget. Perhaps reviewing their selections to reflect new features presented.
On the other side of the ledger, the delegate would select the features that he or she would adopt as part of their basket of goodies. When married together we would have 101 delegates that represent the most requested features
Once marketing and adoption starts to take off and there is real money in running a delegate we'll see more active voting.
Currently half the stakes are unclaimed and BM has hire/fire voting stake against all the delegates. Until that changes through natural market maturation votes don't count for a while lot.
It's a good idea in theory but how do we objectively measure those criteria? Definitely needs a third party, can't be done in the client, and even then it's really hard.Instead of voting for individual delegates, users should be presented with issues or categories. I think I mentioned this in a previous post. Categories should be presented that they can rank the importance of, or give give their own percentage. Like the way you select how much to invest in a particular type of fund in your 401K (high risk, mid-cap, emerging-market, etc). The user are presented with a list like investing in a Bitshares funds. They can allocate there votes by percentage.
Please rank the following criteria by percentage.
1) Performance 30%
2) Marketing 30%
3) Charity 10%
4) R&D 20%
5) Support 10%
The votes are then proportioned to the delegates or slates that meet those definition and have a good track record. The track record can be weighted by the those who receive direct votes from users. People are more likely to vote on issues than individuals because it's easier to grasp.
Thank you! If someone wants to take a more granular approach, they should have an advanced option to see an individual slate. By default, I like the individual categories similar to a 401k. Pheonike's solution would be great for bigger adoption that we're targeting. I'd even take it one step further an have a checkbox to distribute the votes equally to the categories to the people that don't care one way or another.
I love the passion in the thread, however, I'm trying to picture my close friends that might be interested in the tech giving a crap about the slates. For some of us, this is our world. For most everyone else, it's just one more thing in their life. How passionate are you about your debit card?
Great solution Pheonike.
Yes, but this is an issue that we can see coming from a mile away. And I'm not convinced that people will magically become more interested in voting when there's more money at stake; they may still assume the delegates are doing a good job and let someone else focus on that junk while they spend their time trading and transacting.
Am I going mad, or did the word "think" escape your lips? A five page thread and no one has solved the riddle?Doesn't work that way.
The solution is really very simple:
If they do not vote, they cannot collect any yield! Those who vote are rewarded with interest!