Naming vote - post mortem - learnings - analysis

Hello everyone

i would like to gather feedback about the voting process on the name here.
lets look at the results, the turnouts, the voting models and try to look for ways to improve voting for the future. feel free to discuss, give input, critizise, etc in the thread.

some of my thoughts:

  • the early discord discussions and voting rounds took a lot of time and energy, dragging the whole process. in the future i would think we can use discord for very early polls/surveys to predetermine general interests but we should take votes to the on chain tool right away. as far as i understand it, it is possible to change the limit of possible options, maybe we should do that.

  • the voting tool worked very very well. it was simple to set up votes and vote, @ufffd already started to improve the UI for better usability. i think these two voting rounds proved how great the tool works

  • i have the feeling the banners on the main sites were one of the main reasons for the high turnout in the first round. we had the problem that the banners werent working as well in the second round (communication - some issues with the prs) - people may have gotten confused and thought they were done voting after the first round

  • in general we saw that the “run-off” was a bit tricky: the turnout was lower, the results were very close
    → the expectation was, that in a run-off we would get a more clear results. maybe run-offs are not ideal in this space?

  • another question is: the votes are on chain so anyone can write a script to count them during the vote. to me it would make sense to show the results live because otherwise people that can write the code will be able to see results live and others dont. the vote count is open data i would think we should treat it that way in the future

  • the turnout in the first round was huge. we have around 3k daily active users and around 2k voted.

  • we saw that not a single vote was submitted from a wallet that was not eligible to vote. in theory one can vote directly without the UI (the tally script would filter out only eligible votes) the filter in the UI seems to work very well

  • we also saw a very steady flow of votes, no real “spikes” which for me looks very healthy

  • in the future we cant go with “active” wallets before date x - if we do this everytime people can create voting wallets ahead of time

Results Round 1:

2259 total votes

ALLEGORA: 109 votes ( 4.8%)
ALTEIA: 80 votes ( 3.5%)
ARTELIUM: 170 votes ( 7.5%)
ARTFXTION: 203 votes ( 9.0%)
HXN INDEX: 267 votes (11.8%)
MYCO: 82 votes ( 3.6%)
NEEO: 297 votes (13.1%)
ORO: 280 votes (12.4%)
SYNQ: 471 votes (20.8%)
TEIA: 300 votes (13.3%)

Results Round 2:

1285 total votes

SYNQ: 640 votes (49.8%)
TEIA: 645 votes (50.2%)

I don’t know how hard this would be to implement, but I would love to see ranked choice voting, or something similar as a feature on our voting platform.

1 Like

I voted in round 1 and not round 2 because either choice was OK for me. Maybe others felt that way. Slightly favored TEIA, voted for it round 1, and am mostly glad that we can now move forward.


First we voted to stay away from hen derivatives in round 0.
But then somehow there was pressure to keep some hen derivatives, and the whole discussion that it brought made we lose a lot of time and divided the community a bit.

I think that in the next votings we must take care to respect previous voting or it can become chaos and a big dispenser of energy. Luckily none of those hen associated names won, or it would bring a lot discussion because of this issue of the first voting :four_leaf_clover: