4 ms·
My gut sense is that the important time period is length of hold going forward, not length of past hold. Maybe the vote strength should instead go with the per
by joshu 9y ago
My gut sense is that the important time period is length of hold going forward, not length of past hold.
Maybe the vote strength should instead go with the period of lockup instead? That is, I agree to hold my shares for ten years, so I get ten votes.
Perhaps it could even be slightly nonlinear with respect to the length of time? (years * 1+log(years)) or similar?
Edit: LTSE reminds me of LTCM. Not a great connotation?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Godel_unicode 9y agoDo you perhaps mean years*(1+log(years))?
- joshu 9y agoYes, of course.
- jmh530 9y agoThere is some research in political science on paying for votes in elections. They came to the conclusion that you should pay $x and receive sqrt(x) votes. 100 dollars -> 10 votes. I would think the same reasoning would work here. Hold stock $x days, receive sqrt(x) votes (years is tricky because you can hold less than 1 year and the value increases quite a bit during that period).
- eries 9y agoLT is ready for a comeback