Voting Rights Question in TG

Whoever is running the “wallstreetbets” account on tg needs to either unban me or explain how HIS poorly-worded series of tweets warranted a ban.

Whoever has been tweeting from that account has ABSOLUTELY made it sound like the wsb tokens purchased after the deadline could not vote. I am NOT the only person interpreting it that way – which people would know if there had been a mod in the channel before now.

To ban me be for asking that question is absurd. To call it fud is borderline ridiculous. The channel is already overmoderated with there being no ability to discuss other tokens. To ban an early adopter for asking questions about a series of poorly worded tweets is scummy as hell.

Whoever it is is even saying they are rewording the tweet because of the confusion, so this really does not warrant the response from whoever is running it.

EDIT: The TG Message in question:
Nothing in that thread gives me much confidence as to what the heck we are voting on, and are people that buy wsb during the voting period excluded from voting? That seems weird

Drop @MeowMeow a line and he should be able to fix.

I saw the tweet you are referring to and it was not well worded and I am sure caused much confusion.

From what I understand, the snapshot vote system has to take a “snapshot” of WSB token holders at a set point before the final ETP vote starts - and so I think what that tweet meant to say was that at x date/time, all wallets would be snapshotted and would be the holdings used to determine how many votes each wallet would have for the vote.

Does that make sense?

Would that “snapshot” account WSB that are stacked and provided for Liquidity (based on current ratio)?


I have seen that the team are looking into this and will provide feedback once it’s sorted :slight_smile:


Yes. Every token you have in each of the 3 pools, plus any plain WSB tokens you just hold in your wallet, will all be counted towards your total WSB to detmine your No. of votes.

Well - that was cetainly the plan. Can’t say I’ve seen any backend data or numbers to verify this myself. (Just to be clear.)

1 Like

MeowMeow says he can’t fix. I hope whoever muted me for his own mistake enjoys the trip to Miami I’m helping pay for at least. Maybe if he gets a free minute he can drop me a line to apologize.

There is a bot that autobans for certain things, I think. It could have been that!…

So we just published the voted on allocations? I don’t remember voting. This is all pretty strange.

So now I’m banned for asking how they are publishing an article on how we’ve already decided allocation when we haven’t voted?

I honestly do not understand how these responses are warranted unless something is up? What is going on?

We haven’t decided everything yet. There was a first vote (not done on chain), to decide the 20 tokens to go into the ETP.

The first on chain vote is coming soon (as stated in the article), where we will decide the weightings of each of the 20 tokens in the ETP.

So here’s the deal, though, the tweet literally says “Asset allocations are in for the first ETP to be minted by the [WSBDapp] community.”, the title of the article is “WallStreetBets announces asset allocations for its debut Exchange-Traded Portfolio (ETP)

I don’t see how anyone can see that, read the article, and then not think “hey, what the hell, I didn’t get to vote on asset allocation, and that’s what we are supposed to be voting on.” The tweet and article literally says we are done with our debuting allocations.

I asked about this in the chat and – again – whoever is running the account, explained that it’s NOT actually done, but that that “allocation” is just the default allocation selected so the other 2 options can be a simple yes/no vote on which to do. That makes sense, but the tweet and article are poorly-worded, and it should have explained what it was. This is a “high trust” space and when things start to look weird, people can reasonably be expected to ask questions which I did, and then was promptly BANNED from the chat. I cannot even see it now.

This is EXACTLY what happened last night with the tweets that read like 72 hours to buy the token and then you can’t vote. People were asking in the chat why they are not even going to be able to buy the tokens after that and whoever it is relented, admitted it was poorly worded, and muted me for asking why people can’t buy the token and vote during the voting period.

Whoever is writing these tweets is poorly-wording them and then throwing a temper tantrum banning people that ask what they mean. This is completely unprofessional for a company that posits that it will be managing billions of dollars in assets soon. I need to be unbanned so I can at least see announcements regarding the substantial assets I have invested in this Coin. There has literally been no reason for either the muting or the banning. Once this coin is dragged to the break-even point I will reconsider whether this project makes sense as an investment if that is the type of person they want in a public-facing capacity.

@MeowMeow can unban or help get it done.

1 Like

We had a conversation at length on the WSB ETP 20 Proposal here on governance. We took into account everyone’s contribution. Politely understand the DAO is a process and evolves. On the voting question there will be a specific snapshot, that’s how snapshot page works, our current DAO choice. That will be clear for the vote. In general you are talking about refining the ETP methodology which was changed based on feedback.

The point you may be missing is this is the first ETP. There will be more and we will refine the process. We took an open poll first for which tokens, we allowed discussions and we’re working with our governance platform to give the best possible way for a democratic choice. I’m not towing party line here I actually believe that and worked for it with the team. If you have an issue with the allocation you can discuss in the ETP thread, and we can also work with users for the formation of the next one. A DAO will always be a process. So one ETP is not a final thing, people can choose what to put money into, and we can form the following ETPs. It’s our job as a community to come together and create solid and researched ETPs, or fomo degenerate ones, and all the possibilities in between.

In terms of telegram/twitter I don’t work on that. I specifically help with deploying the tech, in brief, I don’t really take any position on what the ETP is.

1 Like

I have addressed issues with allocation in that thread. My issue HERE is that whoever is running the twitter and TG accounts is making EXTREMELY poorly-worded and confusing tweets and then banning people that ask questions.

First, the ‘countdown’ tweets made it sound like the vote was happening and people were confused about that. Then the tweets made it sound like (to me and some others) that people that bought their shares AFTER the countdown could not vote – other people interpreted it as saying they could not buy WSB after the countdown at all. When I asked about it, I was muted. My TG question is posted up above, I don’t see how it is rude, fud, whatever. It is just a ban for not understanding a series of terribly confusing tweets.

Then, after I’m unmuted, he posts that tweet and article that absolutely make it sound like the allocations are done. I asked how they could be “done” if we didn’t vote. He explained what the article meant and then BANNED ME completely from the chat.

I don’t think you can, in good faith, say that either a mute or a ban was warranted in either case. So what is going on? How do I get unbanned? Why is a person that apparently has such thin skin running your most public-facing position?

EDIT: I do appreciate your response as a response from somebody “in charge,” but just to make clear, while I might have ideas or issues with the allocation, none of them are anything that I’m “upset” about. I’m upset about getting banned by what is objectively confusing tweets and trying to seek clarification. I believe in this idea and have a lot of money invested, so I’m going to ask questions when things are not clear.

Well look, we are open to feedback and can improve. Marketing is a whole other space but being hostile isn’t going to achieve anything. If you want to be unbanned no problem meowmeow I think was mentioned he can unban. Please if you can keep your feedback in a constructive way.

Maybe a mistake was made, your opinion is valid. Please let me circulate this to the team, and we’ll look at how improvements can be made. This is why the forum is here, I’m hearing you now (I know this sounds cheesy :slight_smile: but thanks for your patience.

Edit: Your opinion is that they are objectively confusing. We hear that but, opinions vary I get what was confusing. At least you care this much about the project to get fired up, and contribute even if a bit too energetic. We’ll take it into account and hopefully you can find positive ways as well to express your interest.


This is a great example of actual FUD.

You do not understand how voting on-chain works and come in here moaning that something is nefarious - not cool. Have no sympathy and hope they ban you here too.
Looking at the original tweets - I see they were a bit confusion which is prob why they took them down and reposted. But your question about voting on the asset allocation is a syntax error. The Yes / No vote IS the asset allocation vote - since this is decentralized you can propose an alternative vote - but would be less trolly to simply chime in on the discussion of the 1st asset allocation pre-vote.
Looking at the 3rd party news website who published the article - it all makes but perhaps they could have describe the process of polling, discussion, voting - again a 3rd party a better than most articles I’ve seen.

Anyone that has either voted on ANY proposal on-chain or kept up with WSB blogs/tweets will know that creating a massive on-chain (with 20+ options) vote beyond 2-3 options is a complete mess and doesn’t work. I don’t see any tweets or statements in the past that indicate you would vote for the raw math behind the 1st ETP’s starting balance (a compute heavy task)- if you figure out how to do that, it’s a breakthrough since that level of compute is currently not possible on-chain.

Instead (and I commend the WSB team for doing so),

  1. WSB ran an initial poll to harvest which 20 coins should be considered as well as a proposed set of methodology rules in a very tidy example document.
  2. The results were loaded with analysis for community discussions - few things came out of that such as discussing the 4 illiquid coins and putting a minimum 1% rule in place.
  3. The summary of the discussion is then compiled and loaded on as the 1st on-chain vote. I believe the team is currently waiting on to sort out API item + final feedback from Balancer Labs.
    Then you can vote no and if enough people vote the same, I assume a No vote results in it going back to the discussion and re-compile feedback before another vote.

and I’ve never seen a vote where users can buy a token and vote with a token - once the vote is live. This is because a snapshot of balances is taken to start the vote - this method allows for tokens in farming pools to be able to vote and is standard practice. So yes you can buy WSB during the vote - no you can’t vote with your newly purchased WSB if they were purchased after the vote began. I’ve looked over Snapshot myself and see exactly how it works before posting here.

Not reading and moaning because of YOUR interpretation or limitation of understanding or glorified expectations doesn’t help - downvoted.

1 Like

If you read the tweet about allocation, and then read the title of the article – and the article – it says the allocation is done. If the allocation is “done” then what is there to vote on.

I understand NOW that whoever this person is explained that the allocation discussed in the article is a default that is going to be a yes/no. I also understood that that was what was SUPPOSED to be coming. However, that is not what the tweet or original article SAID. It said the allocation was done. I asked and he explained. Then he banned me.

If that is “FUD” then I guess I don’t know what FUD is, if something is worded that confusing.

Closing this topic. The question was resolved. We can move on to another thread if there’s more issues.