...
If we do change it to default to NO, we'll probably have to also reduce the "NO" threshold a bit, and then when approved automatically wipe the votes that had defaulted to NO and were not actually updated during the approval process. Laying out the details this sounds like it could get kind of ugly.
Another alternative... simply require 50% of the mods to vote before an asset can be approved. (in addition to the ratio requiring a positive outcome.)
For any voting, it's better to have no vote preselected at all. Let people make up their own mind. Changing default "No" to "no vote" can also be a slippery slope and cause confusion down the road.
How do you keep moderators interested in voting? What is the incentive? I bet, first few times must be interesting
, but then what?
If moderators is also a issuer, every new listing can be a competition to his own issue. Can this become a problem?
What if there was some type of a "reward" for those who vote in first X days or even hours?
If the new listing request just sits there, it will not get any better. Only active moderators can improve the application (if there is something missing etc)
My hope initially was that the motivation would be to vote in a manner that kept the exchange viable because shareholders have a financial interest in keeping the quality up.
Unfortunately not everyone thinks long term like that. Could mitigate that somewhat by setting up a waiting period between when you get your shares and when you are allowed to vote.
I'm leaning toward requiring at least 50% to vote before approving/disapproving an asset.
You can take this a step further by increasing the number of shares needed to vote or giving extra weight to moderators who own more shares....
