@zooko: Why are you insisting on this so late in the game? Theoretically coin weighted voting is a bad idea for reasons others have touched on: 1) it runs major privacy risks 2) it’s not compatible with cold storage and therefore suffers from low turnout and 3) it’s easy to manipulate.
We also know this empirically from the last failed experiment at coin voting. As you know, there was an unofficial coin weighted vote run during the last sentiment collection. Less than 2% of the coin supply voted. Turn out was so low, in fact, that you could borrow all the ZEC that participated for $600. Note, thats not the cost of borrowing enough to change the vote, it’s borrowing enough to eclipse it completely. It cost $600 to buy every vote cast in the last coin vote.
Placeholder’s analysis of the ZRX vote shows similar issues. This isn’t just a Zcash problem. As Vitalik once said, “PoS isn’t a voting system; stakers are military, not government. Stakers shouldn’t decide policy.”
Why should we risk the future of Zcash, something we all care deeply about, on such manipulation? Lets say the Helios vote is in favor of removing the cap, but the coin weighted vote goes against it. How would we know some well resourced company didn’t manipulate the coin vote to get a larger share for major grants? Or worse, say it goes the other way with the coin vote removeing the cap. How are you going to answer the accusations that you or ECC manipulated it? I’d know you’d never do such a thing, but the accusation is powerful and hard to disprove. It’s the kind of thing that erodes credibility in the community.
It seems the only thing a coin vote can do is allow manipulation, sow dissension and confuse people about the legitimacy of the Helios vote. Surely you don’t want that, so why risk it?