FYI: MA info about the voting system

[Mikass]

I've just stumbled upon this info about how shareholders will be allowed to vote:

Another issue that has been raised relates to voting rights associated with the Calypso Land Deeds. Although the full details of the forthcoming citizenship system are not yet finalized, one solution we are strongly considering is a political system that includes all Entropia Universe participants, with each avatar’s voting power calculated based on a formula that includes various factors such as: account age, deposits, estate ownership, number of land deeds, level of activity, etc. A properly constructed formula will allow us to create a citizenship system that prevents any single participant from gaining an excessive amount of voting power simply by owning a large number of Land Deeds or having deposited large sums. Full details about the voting power formula will be provided as the release of the citizenship system draws closer.

http://www.entropiauniverse.com/bulletin/buzz/2012/4/12/Calypso-Land-Deed-Update.xml

I, for one, find it totally idiotic. In RL if you were to tell a shareholder such rules he'd quickly tell you to go plough yourself and no one would touch a company imposing such rules on shareholder voting rights. This would basically be the equivalent of say Apple give its own customers(aka every Iphone owner) voting rights in the board of directors. Imagine what a train wreck that would be. Funny, though, these terms weren't revealed from the very beginning but only at later point and I've totally missed it. I'm pretty sure many haven't seen this info(released in April 2012) either. I haven't found a thread discussing it in the CLD forum section.

They way I see it, they've just devised a clever system of smoke and mirrors so they'd make sure whole thing will be a dictatorship where current management has full and complete control, but I bet there will be plenty of gullible "little guys" and "dedicated" players with 1 or 2 shares or absolutely zero shares, praising such idiotic system. Though, this coming from MA is no real surprise. I have to give MA credit, yet again, for being a shrewd and savvy business man at the expense of investor confidence.

 

[GeorgeSkywalker]

I'm not sure I understand your viewpoint correctly. The example you gave doesn't seem to me to fit the situation here.

Wouldn't your example be more correct if you said iphone owners got voting rights equivalent to say 1/1000th of one share? i.e. if one shareholder had one share he had 1 voting right whereas owner of iphone got 1/1000th of voting right. Hence, power of any one individual owner of iphone would be marginal. However, collectively owners of iphones could have a meaningful voice.

Wouldn't the trick be to balance the two?


The formula isn't precise it seems to indicate they want to give a voice to all parties. Exactly how it will be balanced we don't know.


If you don't like that formula what is a better formula in your opinion?

 

[Spawn]

I like it.. I am here since 2004, deposited a nice wad of ped, own an estate, got a nice amount of landdeeds.. online 5/7 days a week, let the voting begin..

 

[Mikass]

I'm not sure I understand your viewpoint correctly. The example you gave doesn't seem to me to fit the situation here.

Wouldn't your example be more correct if you said iphone owners got voting rights equivalent to say 1/1000th of one share? i.e. if one shareholder had one share he had 1 voting right whereas owner of iphone got 1/1000th of voting right. Hence, power of any one individual owner of iphone would be marginal. However, collectively owners of iphones could have a meaningful voice.

Wouldn't the trick be to balance the two?


The formula isn't precise it seems to indicate they want to give a voice to all parties. Exactly how it will be balanced we don't know.


If you don't like that formula what is a better formula in your opinion?

My point is Iphone owners shouldn't be able to make decisions regarding the future path of Apple company. It is the shareholders who basically own Planet Calypso, not the participants. Shareholders should have all the say and 1 share should equal 1 vote to a maximum of 60.000 votes/60.000 shares representing 100% of total votes.

6mil $ was the sum SEE had to pay to MA to buy Calypso. MA decided to sell Calypso to willing parties for same amount, 6mil $. Now MA is saying shareholders are not really shareholders with full voting rights and that the participants will really call the shots on future development. Problem is MA is not doing this "communist democracy" out of their goodness of their heart but as scheme to secure control of current management for many years to come in a obfuscating scheme.

 

[Spawn]

My point is Iphone owners shouldn't be able to make decisions regarding the future path of Apple company. It is the shareholders who basically own Planet Calypso, not the participants. Shareholders should all the say and 1 share should equal 1 vote.

6mil $ was the sum SEE paid to MA to buy Calypso. MA decided to sell Calypso to willing parties for same amount, 6mil $. Now MA is saying shareholders are not really shareholders with full voting rights and that the participants will really call the shots on future development. Problem is MA is not doing this "communist democracy" out of their goodness of their heart but as scheme to secure control of current management for many years to come in a obfuscating scheme.

ahh.. I get it now.

yes, that's bad.. you should at least own one cld to have voting rights.

 

[aridash]

they sold CLD as being part of a voting system, it should be one CLD one vote end off. anything else is stupid. if someone hasnt bought a CLD but deposited thousands years ago, why should they have the same or more rights to vote as someone who did buy a CLD? people brought single CLDs as a right to vote (because face it getting 4-5 ped a week isnt any real incentive), what would be the point of them holding them if their avatar age, activity and deposits meant they dont need to own one?

if they want to prevent a single owner or block vote (apart from not selling one person 20% in the first place), is to have a one vote per CLD holder, i.e. holding 1, 5, 10 still has the same voting power. not perfect, but the only reasonable compromise.

 

[GeorgeSkywalker]

My point is Iphone owners shouldn't be able to make decisions regarding the future path of Apple company. It is the shareholders who basically own Planet Calypso, not the participants. Shareholders should have all the say and 1 share should equal 1 vote to a maximum of 60.000 votes/60.000 shares representing 100% of total votes.

6mil $ was the sum SEE had to pay to MA to buy Calypso. MA decided to sell Calypso to willing parties for same amount, 6mil $. Now MA is saying shareholders are not really shareholders with full voting rights and that the participants will really call the shots on future development. Problem is MA is not doing this "communist democracy" out of their goodness of their heart but as scheme to secure control of current management for many years to come in a obfuscating scheme.

One problem with that method is one person could in theory buy a majority share of CLD's and hence have full control over decision making. What if hypothetically David Dobson (CEO of Arkadia) decided to buy a majority share of CLD's, he could then drive his competitor completely to ruin or do everything in the interests of Arkadia and have total disregard for Calypso.

In future PP's would also have a right to a CLD type scheme for their planets. They could also encounter similar situation one PP buys shares of another.

To avoid such a possibility of clashes they said they would be considering other factors as well.


Your quite right though giving rights to non CLD owners may also have adverse effects. However, by considering estate ownership and such factors they listed could alleviate those problems?

 

[Unvinsible]

I don't know, the formula sound stupid. (account age? deposits? wtf)
But maybe not if it was revenue generated on calypso, a guy grinding 16 hours a day on calpyso should have a say on how calypso develops imo. And I say this as a relative large cld owner.

Edit: Not because he should have the right, but because it is good to have those using the system the most to influence direction. (encourage them to stay on calypso)

 

[MIND]

Ma wouldnt be able to code that the voting system would recuire a CLD. we all know that.

 

[DeeDee]

Doesn't really matter as long as we don't know what kind of things we'll be voting on.
And MindArk still has the power to choose the issue.
They could if they wanted only ask really insignificant issues.

//Dee

 

[Svarog]

But isn't it obvious that even if the voting system is really going to be implemented in our lifetime, the submitted questions will be vague and insignificant and the decisions are not obligatory to follow, something similar to the recent email polls. When the vox populi fit with MA's own roadmap they'll praise it, otherwise will just ignore or say they'll look into it (and never do). Isn't it how democracy works?

 

[giuly_adm]

I am sure MA didn't expect to find a buyer for 1/3 of the shares, and the decision to create the formula is to not give to 1 only (and seems unactive) player the monopoly of the decisions.

About me the formula is the most democratic system possible, and offers to every colonist a role in the political system.

This is good considering the political vote should include all the residents of Calypso and not only the investors, since Calypso is mostly a planet where to 'live' and not a corporation.

 

[Spawn]

I am sure MA didn't expect to find a buyer for 1/3 of the shares, and the decision to create the formula is to not give to 1 only (and seems unactive) player the monopoly of the decisions.

About me the formula is the most democratic system possible, and offers to every colonist a role in the political system.

This is good considering the political vote should include all the residents of Calypso and not only the investors, since Calypso is mostly a planet where to 'live' and not a corporation.

with the recent sale of 5k deeds, the above isnt really true anymore. Everybody who could form a qeue got a chance to get one. Besides prior to that everybody had 3 months to get one before the last third got sold.
The formula however seems democratic, but it should be limited to cld owners, since there have been plenty of opportunites to get cld

 

[giuly_adm]

If you mean the 1/3 isn't anymore true... I see it's not so far from reality. Overdrive bought 25000 cld at beginning and sold 5k to MA and few hundreds in auction. He should still have close to 20k that is 1/3 of shares.

Over that I was just thinking at some of my friends that haven't decided to invest in deeds but long time depositing and dedicated players that deserve a role, maye less big than CLD owners one, in the develop decisions.

I would like to see the formula first to tell how fair it is, but vote only to deeds owners isn't exactly rapresentative of the planet population.

 

[thoreau]

they sold CLD as being part of a voting system, it should be one CLD one vote end off. anything else is stupid. if someone hasnt bought a CLD but deposited thousands years ago, why should they have the same or more rights to vote as someone who did buy a CLD? people brought single CLDs as a right to vote (because face it getting 4-5 ped a week isnt any real incentive), what would be the point of them holding them if their avatar age, activity and deposits meant they dont need to own one?

if they want to prevent a single owner or block vote (apart from not selling one person 20% in the first place), is to have a one vote per CLD holder, i.e. holding 1, 5, 10 still has the same voting power. not perfect, but the only reasonable compromise.

I don't think MA stated exactly how the voting system would work. Any purchase made on an expectation of the system was speculation.

That said, I'm not sure a voting system that is based 100% on shareholders is the best idea. To be honest, the best system should probably give the most voting power to those who create the most decay.

 

[FallenAngel]

Doesn't really matter as long as we don't know what kind of things we'll be voting on.
And MindArk still has the power to choose the issue.
They could if they wanted only ask really insignificant issues.

//Dee

this
i was going to ask, what experience do people have of voting actually bringing meaningfull change and/or improvements?

 

[Merkles]

CLD owners are going to get the short end of the stick in the long run.

 

[billairboy]

I think MA suggestion is a good one, i like how they are thinking it this.

I also believe some people are confusing things, CLD are not "shares", it's ownership of a piece of land on Calypso. A voting system based on how much land we own, combined with other variables suggested by MA would be a great way to create a voting system in my opinion. Estate owners should also get additional votes.

 

[Chrome]

Voting... the next taming?!?

I predict that voting will be just like the taming system...

We'll never see it.

 

[aridash]

I don't think MA stated exactly how the voting system would work. Any purchase made on an expectation of the system was speculation.

its hardly speculation, the CLD were announced and it was stated they would grant holders voting rights. its implied that this is exclusive to CLD holders, otherwise what would be the purpose of mentioning the voting at all?

i would say to include other criteria would be deceitful. how many brought a single CLD primarily for the idea of being a Citizen with voting rights? a very large proportion i'd wager.

 

[remontoire]

its hardly speculation, the CLD were announced and it was stated they would grant holders voting rights. its implied that this is exclusive to CLD holders, otherwise what would be the purpose of mentioning the voting at all?

i would say to include other criteria would be deceitful. how many brought a single CLD primarily for the idea of being a Citizen with voting rights? a very large proportion i'd wager.

Well, yes, everybody with at least one cld should have a vote, people with no clds should not have a vote - this part is clear. What is not clear is how many votes somebody with 9 cld (to claim a plot of land) and any further cld-s will have. And I don't think any of MA wordings could really be said to grant holders of say 100 votes to a holder of 100 cld.

It could be something like:

1. one cld entitles you to a vote
2. 9 clds entitles you to two votes
3. any extra 9 clds gives you an extra vote

 

[GeorgeSkywalker]

Giving exclusive voting power to CLD holders only would be wrong imo because many CLD owners I reckon don't actually play the game and/or may have either a negative attitude towards the game. This could then be quite detrimental to the game as a whole because the people who actually play may not have any voice.

 

[Hijacker27]

Whats wrong with a business wanting input from those providing their revenue? If I were a business, I'd want those paying my bills to be able to tell me what they want, not just someone that just sits back and collects cash every week and doesn't care whats good for the business other than short term profits.

 

[Hyperion]

Whats wrong with a business wanting input from those providing their revenue? If I were a business, I'd want those paying my bills to be able to tell me what they want, not just someone that just sits back and collects cash every week and doesn't care whats good for the business other than short term profits.

This gives a good idea, that Voting system and CLDs should "create an obligation" to CLD owner. That person Must be online certan amount of time/have activity of some sort, and cant have a chance to NOT give an oppinion.
Maybe even stop divident payments to ones who just have a bunch of CLD and dont even care whats happens. I mean dividents should be going to people who are interested in better EU.
Ofcource this "obligations system" might make things even more complex, actually maybe this "obligations" system would be more feasable than a system "who has voting right" ?

 

[Joat]

Doesn't matter for me, whats importent imo is the outcome of every vote, and what MA will do
with the opinions.
As it has been mentioned earlier, I doubt anything of importence will come thru' voting, it's more
about graphics and the "shallow" part of gameplay.

 

[Mikass]

Doesn't matter for me, whats importent imo is the outcome of every vote, and what MA will do
with the opinions.
As it has been mentioned earlier, I doubt anything of importence will come thru' voting, it's more
about graphics and the "shallow" part of gameplay.

There's good chance that might be the case. If shareholders were to have a real say even the choice of management and planet CEO should be put to vote.

 

[Profit]

I've just stumbled upon this info about how shareholders will be allowed to vote:


http://www.entropiauniverse.com/bulletin/buzz/2012/4/12/Calypso-Land-Deed-Update.xml

I, for one, find it totally idiotic. In RL if you were to tell a shareholder such rules he'd quickly tell you to go plough yourself and no one would touch a company imposing such rules on shareholder voting rights. This would basically be the equivalent of say Apple give its own customers(aka every Iphone owner) voting rights in the board of directors. Imagine what a train wreck that would be. Funny, though, these terms weren't revealed from the very beginning but only at later point and I've totally missed it. I'm pretty sure many haven't seen this info(released in April 2012) either. I haven't found a thread discussing it in the CLD forum section.

They way I see it, they've just devised a clever system of smoke and mirrors so they'd make sure whole thing will be a dictatorship where current management has full and complete control, but I bet there will be plenty of gullible "little guys" and "dedicated" players with 1 or 2 shares or absolutely zero shares, praising such idiotic system. Though, this coming from MA is no real surprise. I have to give MA credit, yet again, for being a shrewd and savvy business man at the expense of investor confidence.

You're comparing shareholders to CLD holders.
Apples to Oranges.

CLD holders don't hold a share in Calypso, you hold a revenue share certificate. Nothing more.
Completely different.

 

[Mikass]

Giving exclusive voting power to CLD holders only would be wrong imo because many CLD owners I reckon don't actually play the game and/or may have either a negative attitude towards the game. This could then be quite detrimental to the game as a whole because the people who actually play may not have any voice.

Whats wrong with a business wanting input from those providing their revenue? If I were a business, I'd want those paying my bills to be able to tell me what they want, not just someone that just sits back and collects cash every week and doesn't care whats good for the business other than short term profits.

They can get all the input they want from players but leave it out of the shares business. I've filled out numerous Mindark polls via email and such. They can get enough such feedback from forum and email polls for that matter.

Of course shareholders care about "the game" and keep in mind this is not a "game" for those who bought lots of shares. Mindark and Planet Calypso have whole pages dedicated to investments in their virtual world. Let's call it an investment in an online business(I won't use the slot machine G word) which is what it is. Most shareholders would like to see growth in their business and would like therefore to see their money put to good use. Regular customers, on the other hand, have another agenda, which is not increasing return on investment but various subjective opinions and demands based on various factors which might be against growing the company. Also, keep in mind that many shareholders are actually old time players that are maybe sitting on the sideline, with a good understanding of what Entropia is, otherwise they wouldn't have risked investing money in such a high risk, unregulated environment in the first place.

Putting all these issues aside, this is not even about what you think is suitable for your particular case or not. This is about MA honoring commitments and inspiring investor confidence, which they systematically fail to deliver.

It was painfully obvious from the moment I saw this announcement that most players would fall for it because everyone wants something for nothing.

Also, funny how most don't get it that this is not about MA/PC being the good Samaritan caring and opening their hearts and minds to every soul, giving everyone involved a voting right. It's about them making sure they retain full control every step of the way as we wouldn't want "a big bad evil shareholder" take their toys away from them, which might actually be a good thing and refreshing change.

a citizenship system that prevents any single participant from gaining an excessive amount of voting power simply by owning a large number of Land Deeds

I'm pretty sure that all those Mindark and FPC hidden avatars will score very high points in this voting farce.

In the corporate world, this is the fobia of any CEO, to be ousted or held accountable by shareholders who demand better performance or accountability. It is understandable FPC would seek to move away from any form of accountability and like a previous poster said I bet they'll let us vote only on such issues as the color of the trees, painjob of the sidepanel of the satellite dish and other important issues shareholders should be concerned about.
Other trivial and minor issues such as choice of CEO, compensation package for employees, choice of outsourcing development, choice of R&D, choice of advertisement venues should be totally left aside.

 

[Profit]

Stop confusing yourselves.
YOU ARE NOT SHAREHOLDERS.

 

[Mikass]

You're comparing shareholders to CLD holders.
Apples to Oranges.

CLD holders don't hold a share in Calypso, you hold a revenue share certificate. Nothing more.
Completely different.

So what are you saying there? Are you saying Mindark sold Calypso to the players for 6mil$(60.000 shares@100$/share) same amount that SEE virtual worlds was going to pay for Calypso, but without actually selling it? http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/0...lypso-for-6-million-talks-with-massively-for/

Why weren't these voting rights explained from the very beginning, giving the initial impression they would only apply to shareholders or deedholders(if this terminology pleases you more). It gave the false impression that shareholders and only shareholders will have some form of control over the direction of the company they have actually bought but haven't actually bought as it turns out.