3 ms·
How that plays out would be very sensitive to the exact formula for tenure. Ie. A voting "cliff" where you can only vote after year 1. Vs votes per years held *
by mooneater 9y ago
How that plays out would be very sensitive to the exact formula for tenure.
Ie. A voting "cliff" where you can only vote after year 1.
Vs votes per years held * shares, in which case an early investor could get entrenched.
- Retric 9y agoI would probably go for some middle ground such as if (year > 0) then shares * Square root (years). Just because someone has held a stock for 20 years does not necessarily mean they are currently interested in the long term. But, it probably points in that direction.
- rocqua 9y agoYou might want an upper limit, so either logistic growth [1] or something like 1 - exp(-(T + T_0)) feels like it makes more sense. I especially like logistic growth for having slow growth at the start and end, only growing quickly in the middle. [1] https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/ecology/population-growth-and-regulation/a/exponential-logistic-growth https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/ecology/populati...
- SomeStupidPoint 9y agoYou don't need an upperbound as long as your function is sufficiently slow growing. Example: Log(years) doesn't have a bound, but is unlikely to cause problems over any reasonable time scale.
- jshaqaw 9y agoOr it means they are so utterly passive and unthinking that they are just the voters entrenched management dreams about.