Thanks for the confidence. I'm sorry it's still confusing.

We spelled out how it would work, but we didn't detail the implications, and that's where it's getting hung up. Basically, 'smaller votes than normal' should be temporary.

Right now the accounts are in the recharge below 90% ... so they tick along, gradually increasing in VP. Meanwhile, people post, and a queue of posts awaiting votes accumulates. When an account gets above 90, it takes on a few posts from the queue, until the votes delivered are equivalent to a full vote from that account, and then it goes back into recharge.

For posts that are in queue, it's luck of the draw which account will pop above 90% to deliverable the vote (and thus, what the maximum vote size is).

Meanwhile, pending balance accruals are curtailed until all of the accounts get out of this recharge pause, so it's not a permanents state of affairs. It seems complicated from the outside, but the rules are simple and this will help us to more accurately estimate where the sustainable level of pending vote balance accruals should be.

Eventually we will reach a semi-stable equilibrium where accounts are mostly between 90 and 98, always available to immediately vote when posts are made (for members with pending balance above the minimum at least) and max deliverable vote will be more consistently higher than it was before.

But this is not our first attempt to solve for a sustainable equilibrium that cuts down on the gradual buildup of pending vote balances, even for active accounts. We can't promise there won't be further changes down the line if it doesn't work out this time.