Thanks, that's great news! Aeternity really has one of the most active developers in the whole Crypto space. Just have a look at their Github! Already swapped my tokens to mainnet

With Binanace's participation in token migration now things will start to look lot more better for swapped AE coins. There must be trading support for new coins as those were almost locked in wallets of people. That was my only concern lack of support for new AE and finally that is done. Aeternity power house's one year's completion is milestone.

I actually have no stake in this (don't own any AE, never did), so no I truly don't care. I commented because it was pointed out to me as being scammy and after looking at it, I agree.

Maybe you really had no idea that the way you set up the vote biased the results. And maybe you had no idea in general that the ability to control the structure and rules of a vote can often be leveraged to influence the outcome any way you like, essentially overriding the desires and intents of the voters. Maybe.

Any sufficiently profitable incompetence is indistinguishable from fraud.

Maybe you don't care about that either. But if you do care you will take more care in your ensuring that your actions are not only (allegedly) well-intended, but demonstrably and structurally above suspicion. Have a great day.

It is good news finally we hear positive news regarding this swap from big exchanges I hope all other exchanges will follow them and soon we will be able to trade mainnet token on all exchanges.

Changing votes is not a solution. There can be last minute changes by other voters (including very large voters, which has been demonstrated _in practice_ on other chains recently) which mean that any change you might make could turn out to be the opposite of what you want by the end.

The only solution is to structure the vote better, and to not make really important votes as a "learning process".

You're going to get away with this, that is quite clear (and in fact insiders might have enough votes to push through anything you want anyway no matter how the vote is structured, as has also been seen routinely with blockchains projects), but that doesn't change the fact that it stinks and you've done your project and brand no favors by engaging in such shenanigans.

this project is mismanaged in so many ways!!!
first they double the supply, then they ask for more money and steal it from miners, those who are supposed to keep the network safe.
This while the network is insecure as hell and massive centralization has been around for months.

when exit scam?

You don't do a vote on as critically important decision as how the money supply is distributed if by your own admission you having yet figured out how votes should work. Maybe you vote on something like whether the color of the logo should be changed.

This vote was a botch job and should be rerun with a structure that don't bias the outcome in one direction and selectively disenfranchise (via forced vote-splitting) one point of view.

boscoin did a similar shonky thing....once initial cash is sponged they start looking for creative ways to steer the plebs...boscoin which was supposed to have 40k bos nodes...and each person was to get one vote with how the pool of boscoin was to be allocated....THEN ...they cancelled nodes...reduced voting to holding 10k bos....so someone with 10000 x 1 cent had the same voting power as the ICO holder who had millions....all these dodgy 10k accounts appear....then they create a homeocryptic voting system where nobody can see who was voting....you dont want to know name but want to see holding and started to bodge up votes....now they want to vote the fund board out...and have name a pre board to take control...oh forget it...they are pretending the fund stole the fund...and they the developers want to steal the rest of the unallocated bos....to scam...with companies they are creating with the power of the vote to determine who gets the boscoin....what a racket....i looked at what AE presented and its bogus....

Simple question.

What should I vote if I want to minimize the amount of the BRI?

The answer is either 0% or 1%, depending on what I expect the outcome of the vote to be. Since no can really know this, your voting rules force voters holding such a preference to guess and essentially split their votes. The effect is similar to a 'spoiler' candidate in a plurality election, which can result in the least-preferred candidate winning.

I don't know if I agree with the word 'scam' here, but if one is to instead assume good faith, your election was incompetently designed and not efficient in assessing the actual preferences of the voters.

Hey,

We've answered you in the Forum:

The rules are simple:

0% - is an effective “No” vote
1%-20% is an effective “Yes” vote

The BRI percent is determined only by the positive votes. This is not a trick. This is logic.

If 51% of token holders voted 0%, there will be NO BRI, irrespective of the fact that 49% of token holders voted something else.

Best regards,
The AE Team

This logic is a scam. By this "logic" you are removing up to 50% of voters and in that case getting even more. Seriously who you think people are? Complete fools? In that case you force people to vote for at least 1% instead of "0" if they want they voice to be heard.

It also worth to mention that whole their voting math is a total fraud, here is why:



So according to bullshit they wrote in a blog post they simply will reject those who vote "0". The magic is:

((20 * 0.05) + (30 * 0.1) + (20 * 0.15)) / 70 = 10%

Because if they normally count those who don't want to give them a cut (against their interests) it turns out they are getting less:

((30 * 0) + (20 * 0.05) + (30 * 0.1) + (20 * 0.15)) / 100 = 7%


https://blog.aeternity.com/aeternity-first-on-chain-governance-vote-decentralization-2-0-5e0c8a01891a

The people who constructed this fraudulent "governance" scheme want you to make them a trustee of up to 20% of the supply. They give you nothing but a word. They already own almost 20% of supply and want more, it all.

Scammers removed this post from reddit.