🚨 3 days left to vote! 🚨

The parameter committee has spent months/years debating on how to accurately gauge SPO sentiment about raising stakePoolTargetNum from 500->1000. As part of this, myself and another member of the parameter committee meticulously drafted all the arguments for and arguments against and linked them in separate documents so that voters could have a balanced view of both arguments. We linked these inside of a neutral-language Info Action body for SPOs to consider. Because Info Actions have no ratification threshold and stakePoolTargetNum isn't a parameter that SPOs vote on through governance, the parameter committee collectively agreed to use a specific threshold of explicit YES > explicit NO for this Info Action. This is already above and beyond what the protocol and the Constitution require and we went out of our way to give SPOs a voice on this. Unfortunately, a community member who is opposed to the parameter change hijacked our draft and the years of effort that went into it, changed the threshold to suit his desired outcome, and submitted it without consulting anybody. Even if the we can reasonably disagree about what the threshold should be for this vote (remember it is not required at all), taking other people's work, twisting it, and submitting in a manner to suit your own narrative is extremely disappointing to see. I'm very disheartened by this after having spent years of my own, uncompensated effort building to this point only to see a community member undermine it like this. If you want to see the real draft that the parameter committee put together, you can read it here. Also the case for and case against are linked as well, so you can see both sides of the discussion fairly. I can't speak on behalf of the others, but I will be interpreting the outcome of the vote based on the criteria that the parameter committee collectively agreed on, regardless of what this Info Action says. docs.google.com/document/d/1…