I believe most of us didn't vote for the Venezuela proposal because this forum learned about 1 year ago that using Firmino up top would solve all of Brazil's problems.

Voted, never heard of half of these investments.

Voted - currently referring to myself now as a Cricket sharp

Brave English Cricket Lads getting shunned in favour of a young international football team not featuring Sir Philip Walter Foden is nothing short of a travesty.

I believe there's nothing wrong with it being proposed again next week, right?

I can't even find these esports matches on investmentfair?

My perturbedness is increasing as the votes roll in for them despite their miserly projected returns

Little drop down menu named "all sports" -> Esports -> League of Legends

Firmino is a European Champion whose season ended like 1 week ago. If tournament wasn't in Brazil I doubt he'd even playing. My man is definitely dancing forro until the wee hours of the morning. All went into my lock of the year that Brazil wasn't beating Venezuela by THREE goals, but you guys are hot on the trails of Asians who play video games.

Wasn't actionable yo!

The bookies are catching up and all 3 most voted investments have gone down.
We need to move.

Also to add for Fremantle

AFL teams run through crepe paper as a pregame ritual.

May our crepe paper banner be more witty and creative than theirs.

Our sport is a bit weird now I explain it.

Partners are invited to conduct themselves with decorum

might have to change your name pal

we havent even spoken about your very tiny shorts and extra-sleeveless tops

At the quarterly board meeting I would like to propose a motion to revise how investments are proposed and voted on specifically pertaining to the time frame. Odds change. What might have seen like a good investment at the weekend may have been seen like a good investment by many other firms which were able to act much quicker. Furthermore, juicy investments, the majority of which are only announced on the day or the day before, are unable to be backed given our archaic, pre-internet, current setup. When will the next board meeting take place to discuss such proposals?

the primary mechanism for rule changes are Special Resolutions. get 9 other Partners to sign your Special Resolution and it'll be put up for vote, wherein a simple majority will carry the day

the current format was designed in such a way as to shield Partner Capital from impatient monkeys and their impulse-driven decisions - there is a reason that every Partner bar one is down lifetime vs the book - but if you can get enough support then I will not be able to prevent a change

second the motion of Partner LFC_USA Goat to equip existing procedure with a mechanism to expedite actions.

Another option could be to just put a 24 hour time limit when proposals have been made and then top 3 with the most votes is actioned as opposed to needing to wait for majorities.

But I don't really care how we do it. I'm just here for the gambools. I mean, free investment currency

I'm with you on the not really caring but I definitely think the voting window could easily be shortened by 50% at least giving a bigger pool of investment opportunities.

For example under this system in a couple weeks round 1 of the (british) open featuring extreme capital opportunities would be unavailable to us.

No one has really voted in this poll since yesterday.

Yep I agree, 2/3 days should be enough time for everyone to vote anyway

Probably even 24 hours would be fine tbh

i expect that once Partners become familiar with the process, the Proposal to Investments Lodged timescale will shrink to:
1 day for proposals from the relevant Partnership Group
half a day for proposals by the wider Partnership (if needed)
1 day for voting

you'll understand that the first week could not be rushed as Partners are still becoming familiar with the process

so, once we hit our stride, potentially 2 days from first Proposal to Investment Lodged if sufficient Group Partners Lodge their Proposals

we'll be somewhat more agile, but note that it's not going to result in more than one Investment Round per week unless we nominate a second Actioner (i cant do more than one/week)

Sensible. I think one investment round per week is best, also. Quality over quantity.

My proposal would be this:

Every 2 days, if there at least 5 proposals made OR at least 5 members propose and/or support the same investment take it to a vote.

Voting can begin at 3:00pm UK time, 10:00 am USA time. That way Yanks will have had sufficient time to see the days (and in some cases the following days) investment options the night before and that morning and Brits will have all day to survey the market and decide which investments they would like to propose to the firm. Then voting would close at 11pm UK time, 6pm USA time.

With this proposal we can get the American sports (basketball, baseball, lol hockey)whose markets are defined on more of a daily basis or 24-hour cycle as well as Euro + OTHER sports (football EU, football USA, rugby, cricket, handball, field hockey, curling, gymnastics, track and field, whatever other weird **** you guys are into) as well has completely nerd events (video games, esports) whose market is usually announced much further in advance.

I would also support a stipulation that a minimum number of votes must be obtained in order to action an investment in this format. The exact number of votes, could itself, be put up to a vote. So in this format it is very possible that even though we are voting every 2 days, an investment is not actioned every 2 days. I would propose a maximum of TWO (2) investments be made per proposal cycle with the exception of a maximum of THREE (3) investments being made for weekend proposals.


This is just a rough outline of a proposal to submit to the firm, and of course feedback and discussion to fine tune the format is of course encouraged and appreciated.

that's fine but i'll have to quit my job

what's the Partnership offering for me to go full time?

1% of future earnings should see you extremely comfortable

or perhaps the less lucrative approach of assigning the responsibility of pole creator to multiple partners...