Closed 19 days ago on a margin of 1.4 points. The closest result so far.
50.7%
yes · 1,043 BSV days · 15 wallets
49.3%
no · 1,014 BSV days · 14 wallets
44 comments, on the hour each was said. Play them, or hover a face.
This proposal closed Yes, which committed the organiser to the action in its criteria. Their record of doing it is below, and they are the only person who can add to it.
This is now overdue and I would rather say so here than let the board show it silently. The third partner has come back with an objection about onboarding work they do that others do not, which is a fair point and not one the proposal anticipated. I am costing it. Expect either a delivery or an abandonment with reasons inside two weeks, not another update like this one.
Wording drafted and with two of the three accredited partners. The third has not replied in a week. I am not going to publish a cap that one partner has not seen, so this may go past its date.
Closed Yes by 1.4 points, the closest result we have had. A margin that thin does not make the result less binding, but it does mean I want the partner agreement wording checked properly rather than quickly. Due in fourteen days.
A cap on what accredited partners may charge a merchant to onboard.
It closed Yes on 1,043 BSV days against 1,014, a margin of 1.4 points and the closest result this app has recorded. Twenty-nine wallets locked on it.
A margin this thin is the case for publishing the criteria before voting opens. Nobody has argued about what the result means, because the rule was written down before anyone locked.