I’m supportive of the reasoning behind the alternative set of voting options you suggested, and I will update the proposal accordingly once there is some more feedback on it.
As for the 100% voting option: personally, I’m not a fan of that option either, so we should remove it and replace it with a more reasonable alternative (see below an example how this could look like).
Voting Options
- Option 1: Only A, using ⅓ of unredeemed tokens
- Option 2: Only A, using ⅔ of unredeemed tokens
- Option 3: A+B in parallel, using ⅓ of unredeemed tokens for A and ⅔ for B
- Option 4: A+B in parallel, using ⅔ of unredeemed tokens for A and ⅓ for B
- Abstain
- Make no changes
To make the implications of the proposed voting options clearer, we should add a disclaimer to the Allocation B explanation, clearly stating that voting for it serves “only” as a signal and any decision about specifics will require another vote:
Types of Allocations
- Allocation A: Redistribute unredeemed tokens proportionately to all those who previously redeemed their allocated tokens
- Allocation B: Explore other ideas for allocations, including setting up a new claim period for those who were eligible for the initial claim but had not redeemed their allocations (“extend claim period”) [Disclaimer: Voting to include Allocation B serves “only” as a signal; a final decision on extending the claim period and/or considering other ideas for allocations requires another SEP.]