Hmm, transparency request coming from a guy who's obviously hiding his identity. I almost never downvote a post, but given the timing of this post, the flawed reasoning, and some question I have as to whether this research was "funded" by a whale, I'm going to do so. What's flawed about the reasoning IMO: 1) the concept that a straight vote count isn't generally subject to sybil attack is just ludicrous and trying to promote that this might be a reasonable view of people's opinion just ticks me off, 2) not recognizing that the current voting is not a static thing, and therefore suggesting that if dan or val's votes were changed, no one else might change their votes as well. The 2nd point should be clear to anyone who's doing this kind of analysis, and I find your failure to detect it pretty interesting, since there was a seismic change in witness votes in direct opposition to val's votes and you totally ignored those changes. In fact, most of your conclusions about where everyone would stand ignored those vote changes.