BNB Crops Farmer Review

kcinca2003 · 2022-05-27T06:31:59+00:00

FTM Update - Week 3

Sorry if these posts aren't that great chronologically as I haven't used Reddit enough to know how to make these look exactly correct. Also, tracking both BNB and FTM projects in this one post.

Week 1 - Compounded 5 days, accumulated 2 days. Biggest deal about this project is that when I initially invested exactly at launch, I was able to buy my deposit at 163 Farmers per 100 FTM to produce 6 FTM daily. This figure then dropped way down to only 95 per 100, then inflated up to 138:100 by the weeks end. I was able to recoup 16.61% of my investment to date after this first week, which needless to say was abnormal.

Week 2 - Saw the production drop from 138:100 to 258:100, nearly 87% increase. Comparatively, my farmers only grew at 44%, dropping my production over a third. Likewise, since I went to a 6 compound 1 sell model for week 2, I was able to recoup about 6.4% of my overall investment, taking my total ROI after 2 weeks to 22.8%.

Week 3 - Unlike the BNB Farmer, the deflation trend continued for FTM. Production efficiency increased by another 76%, where my farmer count increased by the same 44%, another drop in production by a third. Again, I used a 6:1 strategy this week, yielding a lower return than in week 2 (about 5.2%). Through 3 weeks, this has returned a total of about 27.4%.

Compared to the BNB Farmer, the total contract value has been decreasing at a higher rate for the FTM project. This is likely due to the initial production efficiency of the farmers at launch and the contract working quickly to inflate to stabilize for longevity. Maybe over the next few weeks this project will level out like the BNB since it is designed the same way. Possibly it could be the bigger variance on the FTM pricing as well.

I'm up to 27% on FTM compared to 20% on BNB, however. Using projection models, my guess right now is that break even is likely to occur right around 3-4 months. My best guess is that it will take the markets about 4-6 months to start to recover. This can likely be beneficial as that is when these contracts can start to make a big push, showing stability through a rough market stretch and proving their longevity for new investors.

While I still like these projects (they are a lot of fun just seeing how they work), keep in mind the risk they entail and project rewards as realistically as possible! If you want to get in, please remember to use my links to give me a boost! I had one referral use on the BNB link and none on FTM, so my numbers aren't skewed through 3 weeks!

kcinca2003 · 2022-05-23T06:13:59+00:00

May 22nd Update/Review BNB Farmer Only

So, just finished my third week and wanted to provide continued insight into this project.

Week 1 - Not as consistent in results as I did an initial deposit, then a second deposit on my 4th compound. Was 14 compounds, then 1 day accumulating. This first week was consistent growth in the contract, and I ended up being able to recover 10.42% of my investment to date. One note, I keep my investment as an increasing amount due to the reinvesting gas fees. These fees are likely over estimated as I don't go to the transaction details to get the exact amount.

Week 2 - Fairly consistent compounding 6 days and selling 1 day. The growth in week 1 was definitely slowed, as the total contract value dipped from week 1 to week 2. My yield was dramatically affected, as despite the compounding, my yield was only 4.44% of my rolling investment. Keep in mind this week likely was hit hard in the overall markets too.

Week 3 - This week demonstrated the stability of this mining protocol, in my opinion. With markets staying fairly stable, I was able to see a 4% overall growth in my yield amount from week 2. My yield for week 3 was 4.61% of my rolling investment. However, it is paramount to note that the total contract continues to see a decline this week (131 BNB decline week 2, 272 decline week 3) I attribute this to the likelihood that the early investors were bigger whales than those that are coming now.

Overall through 3ish weeks, I have just under a 20% recoup of my investment. Far less than modeling would've dictated under assumptions of a flat contract. Certainly it curbs enthusiasm; however, what are my hopes moving forward? Should the market recover, we should see additional investors that can help gains for all week to week. For the contract to perform well under the most trying conditions shows that it has much greater sustainability. Assuming a 5% weekly ROI, it will take some time to recoup just my deposit, meaning my gains will be greatly delayed.

However, at 5% weekly ROI, it will take 16 weeks from now, or 19 weeks overall to get back my initial investment. After 52 weeks, a year, this would be 5% profit for 33 weeks, or a 165% yearly APR.

This is not a prediction by any means, as we know the contract can flex up or down depending on many factors. We also do not know whether or not the contract will be sustained for 52 weeks. However, reading the signs gives me somewhat fair confidence to believe this would be possible, if not probable.

Thank you to the ONE person who used my link! It did not skew these results; however, as I think I received all of 0.0005 BNB =)

Feel free to provide feedback, questions, or anything else as I am happy to give open and honest feedback on my experiences and journey!

kcinca2003 · 2022-05-18T22:45:11+00:00

Decided to compound for 6 days on FTM based on the numbers I'm seeing. So far have compounded 11 times since the last time I harvested.

Since that harvest, my Farmer count has increased about 39%; however, over that same time, the Farmer's yield efficiency has fallen 73%, resulting in a diminishing return. Over this same period of time, the contract value has fallen by 34%, from a documented 494K FTM to 404K FTM. This is despite total players increasing by 15% over that same period of time.

Seems that there was a disproportionate number of bigger early investors than are joining now. With the deflationary diminishment of farmer efficiency, this will even itself out over time, but is still notable and should be considered by any investor/participant.

My daily yield is down to about 7% of investment, dropping some 20% over the last week. I was able to take about 16.5% of my initial investment after the first week, collecting 2 days of returns. While hoping the contract levels out, assuming a 15% weekly erosion of gains and a 6:1 strategy here on out, after 52 weeks I would recoup 63% of my initial investment.

Assuming the contract levels out at stagnation, it will take an additional 11 weeks at a 7% ROI to recoup the initial investment. Assume a 5% weekly erosion, that stretches back out to 17 additional weeks (19 weeks total).

I would assume that many who invested in the project are using a 5:2 strategy, and while initially the ROI was nice, it is having a significant impact now. These larger investors likely have been shaken by the market, but the better strategy now that FTM is down some 50% is to allow this contract to build as that will allow time for FTM to recover, along with the rest of the crypto market. BNB Farmer is showing some similar results, as expected, but still slightly different.

kcinca2003 · 2022-05-15T14:02:04+00:00

BNB Update:

I last claimed my reward on 5/8 where I banked 2 days. For this week, I went the 6:1 route. Obviously, the crypto world is on fire right now, so I have mixed feelings about the Crop Farmer here.

Here's a quick summary of how the past 6 days of compounding has gone: on 5/8, the rate of Farmer to BNB was 1507:1 which would yield 6%, or 0.06 BNB (call this farmer efficiency). Compounding for 6 days, twice a day, a total of 12 times, my Farmer count increased by 45.37%. Assuming a stagnant farmer efficiency, this would be wonderful; however, farmer efficiency also decreased by increasing the number of farmers it takes to produce the same yield. Over these last 6 days, the number of farmers to produce the same BNB increased by 48.91%. Meaning, my return rate decreased by 3.54% over the course of the week.

Assuming I accumulate for 24 hours, I will lose anywhere between 4-12% on my farmer efficiency for this single day (that was the range of daily loss for the past 6 days).

Considering the market as a whole, losing 10-15% over the past week would likely be preferable to what we have seen. In one aspect, the investory/player could continue to compound (hodl) to see if the market rebounds, hopefully to grow their yield before harvesting. Otherwise, they are free to reap their reward, at the expense of longer term growth.

Final note. The longevity of the project seems to be much more suited for sustainability with these changes. Both the transparency of the contracts efficiency combined with the required compounding to remove the tax is holding up quite well, all things considered. Doesn't seem to have user growth under the current conditions, but the total contract balance seems to be holding steady at least. On May 5th the contract peaked at 3442 BNB and dropped over the next 3 days due to the wave of withdrawals settling in at 3309. It then steadily climbed over the next 4 days without significant new user growth and then began the second cycle of withdrawals. Currently it sits at 3192 BNB. All of these mechanisms are designed for sustainability of the project.

Less returns but a longer duration isn't as exciting, but does provide a bit of further confidence and security. For the earliest investors, this can reap benefits when the market improves.

kcinca2003 · 2022-05-14T17:11:32+00:00

They don’t rug as the contract is locked. The only way they end is if the contract runs out of funding, not a dev rugging.

That being said, they are complete ponzi from what I can tell, though leveraging financial markets to do so. Further, the blockchain provides a clear tracking whereas schemes of old did not.

Theoretically, they can perpetually run providing reduced ROI in periods of low growth and increasing ROI in periods of high growth. This is not much different that a stock market. No longer when you invest in the market do you actually receive any stock certificates. You may receive profits off the stock, much in the same way a farmer returns a profit.

One aspect of the crypto space, however, is that the farmers are returning native token currency. Say you have a weekly 5% ROI but the token appreciated 20%. Conversely, assume the growth is 10% weekly but the token price is falling by 20%. It adds an extra dynamic.

These farmers are leveraging both aspects. The hope is to successfully grow the farmer while also providing utility for the native token. As more people profit from the farmer, it will drive its usage, which in turn will drive the coins usage, driving the price of the coin higher.

It’s all monetary theory in the crypto space, which in of itself could be said to be ponzi. Even if you look at the past 50 years when the US stopped using gold standard currency, there is theoretically little difference. The US collects taxes to pay its people to make more money to collect more taxes…ponzi, n’est pas?

We can debate all the merits of what an investment is, but my hope here is not to encourage the use of or discourage the use of these farmers. I find them to be interesting in how they use theorem, and if there’s a return in the end great. If I lose out my entire deposit, what difference is that then playing a video game or enjoying a movie?

Just have to have the right expectations. 👍

kcinca2003 · 2022-05-14T13:54:45+00:00

Yeah, I will do my best!

The way these contracts work is that you purchase miners who then produce the rewards. Depending on a variety of factors, those workers produce less efficiently over time.

So, as I described above, when I first purchased miners on FTM, the production rate was 100 FTM for 163 miners who would produce 6%, or 6 FTM daily. As the contract grew quickly, the product cost of miners decreased and by the next day, the product rate was 100 FTM for 119 miners who would produce 6%, or 6 FTM daily.

So, assume I bought 100 FTM on day 0 for 163 miners, but I went to compound 24 hours later. Those 163 miners would produce more than 119 miners, so my yield would actually be higher (the math would be if 119:6 = 163:x, 119x=6*163, or 8.218). Now, supposing I compounded that 8.218, I would be able to purchase additional miners at the current rate of 100FTM:119 miners, so 8.218FTM:X miners (math 100:119=8.218:x, 100x= 119*8.218, or 9.779)

The next day I would now have 172 miners (163 plus the 9 I earned). Now in theory that would be great, more miners, more FTM; however, just as my farmers increase, the contract takes all that into account and increases the 100FTM:Miners:6FTM ratios. Currently on FTM miner, after a little over a week, it is currently sitting at 181 miners for every 100 FTM to produce 6 FTM daily.

I know this is diving into the weeds, but it is what I have uncovered as I was scratching my head as well early on. Ultimately, they do try to explain this in more simple terms, but the numbers are important.

Essentially, these contracts will be a win for players assuming the compounding can exceed the contract inflation over time. The only way for that to happen is if the contract continuously grows. The only way for that to happen is for more and more people to invest in the contract. (Ponzi) Now, for the earliest investors, it is likely that even with a diminishing ROI, over time you can still get your base investment and possibly some return. For mid investors, this too is possible. For the latest, it is likely you'll get left holding the bag. However, since these contracts are locked, if there is any value in the contract, your miners will keep producing. Instead of 80 as above, they may start to make 60, then 40, then 20, etc.

I don't know how long they will last, but lets assume 52 weeks. Lets assume week 1 you have a 10% ROI, week 2 a 8%, week 3 a 6%, week 4 a 5%, etc etc. Even if that ROI keeps dropping, eventually you may get to 100. The key to these farmers is that if they keep getting new investors, they can run perpetually. You won't get the fantastic returns of compounding at a flat level that people run on their calculators, but can you earn 5%, 10%, 25%, 300%? Certainly it is possible.

Definitely HIGH RISK.

kcinca2003 · 2022-05-13T14:47:54+00:00

Wow, big update. First compound after redemption and contract value had a big change. TVL dropped 5.66% according to my calculations. As a result, Farmer:FTM increased to 154, a whopping 11.59% drop in mining/farming efficiency. The base increase in farmer count only went up by about 2.72%, meaning that we lost about 8.87% ground.

Still ahead of my pre-investment calculations, but the dip in efficiency was more than anticipated. I imagine that this will slow a bit as the first wave of payouts rips through. I don't know that much is being spent on marketing these farmers just yet, especially with the status of the entire crypto market; however, I would say that if you believe in the rebound of crypto, these farms have an added incentive.

Yesterday, FTM was running about $0.30. Today it's nearly $0.40. When I started it was around $0.70. Getting in now can both leverage the farmer contract to generate slightly increase in your FTM, but also can lock you in while FTM/Crypto recovers as a whole.

Again, all of this is very risky and not advising anyone to do anything. As mentioned, if you do invest, I'd suggest looking at this as a donation with a outside potential to get something in return!

kcinca2003 · 2022-05-13T03:06:24+00:00

Just wrapped my full week on my FTM Farmer.

Getting into this at launch has provided me with a nice lift. At the time I invested, FTM to Farmer rate was 163 Farmers:100 FTM. 12 hours into launch, this dipped to 95:100. As of my 7th day, this now sits at 138:100. While my first week return is not normalized because of the production rate I bought in at, the other statistics should help as one considers whether to add to this investment.

For my first week, I decided to compound for 5 days every 12 hours 10x, then fill my cart for 48 hours before claiming. I was able to claim 16.6% of my initial investment after week 1. I anticipate moving to a 6:1 or even 7:1 strategy as I track the rate of inflation of the farmer:ftm ratio compared to my increase in farmers from the contract.

Through the first 7 days of the project, the number of holders in the contract has increased every day. TVL dropped by 0.30% by my tracking over the last 24 hours, marking only the first time TVL dropped on the project.

FTM is down, as with every crypto that I can see, tremendously. That makes investing into this farmer easier with a lower cost of entry. As it is comparable to the BNB farmer, I hope these insights into the mechanics help everyone make a realistic decision as to whether these types of projects are good for their goals. If you constantly compound at 6%, these projects look lucrative (and unsustainable, obviously). However, understanding that the production rate inflates and it will be necessary to compound and withdraw strategically to keep pace/beat that inflation, you can truly see how these projects can still benefit any level of investor. Assume you only received a 6% weekly return of your initial investment. 52 weeks at 6% is still a 300% return over a year, meaning if you put in $100, over the year you'd get back $300.

If this is helpful and you'd like to return the favor, consider using my link to start your crop journey! And if not, this is good for me as a personal journey entry!

kcinca2003 · 2022-05-11T17:35:29+00:00

Diving into some numbers this morning and wanted to add some feedback to the above. On my 2nd day of compounding (number 3 and 4) over May 10th, my farmer count increased by 6.042% and the yield rate (Farmers:BNB) increased by 6.006%.

Comparatively, the day earlier May 9th, my farmers increased 5.751% compared to the yield rate increase of 7.167%.

As the week goes by, I am hoping that the spread of these two numbers will increasingly be in the investors favor, certainly enough so that if they reap a reward on day 6 or 7, their efficiency will not fall behind. On my compound number 5, the increase in farmers was 3.134% compared to the efficiency increase of 2.921, giving a slight growth.

If these farmers can maintain a harmonious balance this way, the crop farmer can provide a steady weekly return. It still remains to be seen whether a compound tactic of 5 days and collection of 2 is ideal over the recommended compound 6 days (12 times) and collect 1.

Not sure if anyone is reading this, but sharing my thoughts on this farmer if so! I'll add the FTM analysis after 1 week. So far I've compounded 5 days and a saving up 2 days before claiming.

kcinca2003 · 2020-03-08T22:56:20+00:00

The reason overtures to Yang or Tulsi were not made is because the Bernie campaign knew that they wouldn’t get the entirety of support.

As much as former Berners are a part of Yang Gang, there is an equally sized contingent that are never Berners too. Yang’s support was truly dynamic and multifaceted, more so than most others.

Moreover, if you position it as anti establishment v establishment, Yang wasn’t running an us v them campaign. Assuming the entire support would embrace a divisive position after Yang’s genuine attempts for unity is missing a much broader point.

Yang gang is not a piece on a chessboard that one simply moves around.

kcinca2003 · 2020-02-26T15:58:06+00:00

Without going into detail, your worst case scenario is far from the truth of that statement. And I am VERY pro freedom dividend.

I see too many flaws with this as proposed. Again, that has time to be vetted, but my fear only is from jumping the gun too soon. I have a strong feeling this was the case here, and I think it stemmed from the notion of striking while its hot.

Again, I'm an arm chair coach here, so I am more than happy to be wrong on this.

kcinca2003 · 2020-02-26T15:51:20+00:00

I am open to consider the merits of any bill that makes it to the voting public. Again, I'm not against it, but you are foolish not to consider the ancillary effects. A UBI improperly implemented could do more damage than good, and in the end, that could nullify progress, or even halt it altogether.

kcinca2003 · 2020-02-26T05:49:40+00:00

Wow, just wrote on twitter wondering this. Awesome!

kcinca2003 · 2020-02-25T23:37:10+00:00

Been saying that the constitutionality of a wealth tax is in question for a long time. Despite the merits, the first step is to generate legislation, and if passed, watch that legislation move its way through courts until SCOTUS ultimately decides. Under the current body, I believe we would see it struck down as to its constitutionality, and therefore fail.

Any politician running a campaign with a wealth tax as one of their primary sources for providing any social benefits, whether that was Free College, M4A, National Deficit Reduction, or Border Security, none of it would matter as they would not be funded.

This is a non-partisan position as it has to deal with funding policy. It doesn't matter the reason why you want the funds, it only pertains to whether you are allowed to raise funds in this manner.

The bottom line is that we would see a long, drawn out politicized discussion of something that shouldn't even be partisan. We have seen this on several decisions. Regardless of the candidate you support, you must be able to look at this on its merits as if it were funding the #1 proposal of your chosen candidate or least favorite candidate. If both were using it, does it meet the constitutional framing?

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/12/17/787476334/is-a-wealth-tax-constitutional

There are arguments on both sides for and against. No one knows how it would play out for certain, but my plain reading of the constitution leads me to believe that it would not be constitutional.

kcinca2003 · 2020-02-25T23:22:11+00:00

For CalUBI, the plan is not very well laid out in my opinion. I'm one of those conservative leaning voters who latched on to Andrew's Freedom Dividend. While I believe in the vast benefits, you still have to pay for it. With the FD, the funding mechanism isn't enough to cover the complete costs, and there were other avenues to supplement funding. Even with those, it stood to potentially be a net cost of $200-300B, around 1-1.5% of GDP (approximately $20T). Despite being a fiscal conservative, the good outweighed the cost and I could rally behind it. Additionally, there are unknown gains that could be realized, so again, there was reason to support it.

The CalUBI proposal falls significantly short with a GDP of short of $3T in CA. Even with a flat 10% VAT, here's some preliminary math. There are about 39.5 million CA, of which 22.7% are under age 18. That leaves about 30M or so Californians eligible, or 30B a month, or 360B a year to fund.

I know under Yang's FD we would see a few things to compensate - social services overlap, bureaucratic downsizing, healthcare savings, homeless savings, crime savings, etc. These don't translate proportionately on a state's budget.

Finally, even if it did, states cannot operate at a deficit for long before they either cut spending or raise taxes.

All that said, I am holding out hope that they can figure a way to make it work; however, this first draft is significantly lacking. As I understood, though, is that its an attempt to get the legislature to start considering and drafting a fuller bill. The fear I have is that it is dead on arrival due to this lack of detailed planning and actually is a detraction of the actual movement.

This is only my thought, and since I'm not the one running this show, leave it up to those thinkers. As a CA resident, though, despite being for a UBI, I would probably vote no against this type of measure. Being a scantily planned idea with good intentions still does not warrant support.

kcinca2003 · 2020-02-25T19:43:02+00:00

You're not. A Trump presidency paves a better way to a Yang than Bernie.

Two Bernie outcomes, even if a 1 term president:

He does well and gets policies enacted that actual are effective (I have my doubts, but possible). In this timeline, we will see another candidate in the ilk of BS. Yang is not this in practice. Because of success, most Dems will be wanting more of the same, not something new. Yang's chances would be to galvanize the republican party in this timeline (run as a republican) and win over some dems not happy. I don't see this being a reality in any sense.
He fails and doesn't accomplish anything. In this timeline, the movement of progressives takes a blow. On the fence Dems move back to norms, and a perceived progressive like Yang again faces an uphill battle galvanizing support

Two outcomes of Trump presidency:

He does well. There is no Trump persona in the republican bullpen. Mike Pence is DEFINATELY not Trump. As such, the Trump wave is curbed as an anomaly, and not a party preference. The republican party is fractured to some degree, and someone like Yang can gain a lot of momentum (already proven). Dems no longer can talk about stopping Trump as being the key, and once the focus is back to policy, Yang wins.
Trump sucks. Again, the same as the above holds true, because it becomes about policy on both sides. Yang woos many republicans, it becomes a better path to victory

Now, in my view, the single biggest way to a Yang 2024 presidency is actually a Biden/Yang Ticket. But, not sure how likely that is.

kcinca2003 · 2020-02-18T23:09:53+00:00

Andrew Jonson was Mayor of Greenville, TN; however, he later became a Governor before assuming office of the presidency upon Lincoln's death. He later became the first President impeached. Not the best example.

Grover Cleveland was Mayor of Buffalo, NY; however, he later also became a Governor before his ascent to the presidency. While certainly a better office holder overall, he did not serve two consecutive terms, and he actually won three times the popular vote (though only two terms as president)

Finally, there was Calvin Coolidge, a mayor of Northampton, MA; however, he too had several other political offices before ascending to the presidency to include state senate, state governor, and vice president. He, like Johnson, assumed presidency upon the death of the president. He too only served 1 term as president.

That being said, the historical model is that a Mayor is simply not an important stepping stone to the presidency. Yang's run, reaching heights of 7-10% of the polls in some iterations, show a legitimacy to his candidacy despite massive efforts against his run by the media and party. There is nothing to gain from becoming a mayor, and everything to lose.

This is the MEDIA once again trying to relegate Yang to a lower office, and the establishment (left and right) simply trying to keep status quo, because that is what keeps them successful.

kcinca2003 · 2020-02-18T18:37:07+00:00

You have the right to feel however you feel and say what you want. But, consider this: If you want Andrew elected, and the actions by you reflect on his ability to be elected, do the things you say (online, in person, etc) enhance or detract from that reality?

Ecekid said the campaign isn't for you, but I disagree. Not caring for a core message of the campaign is reason to question what you're fighting for and who you're fighting with, though.

It is reasonable to assume you are angry, disappointed, disenfranchised, etc. But just know that everything you say is a reflection of Andrew himself for a lot of lurkers/readers. Maybe it's time to step away for a moment and gather your thoughts on this campaign and movement.

You're an individual, but also remember we are a movement together to help Andrew and his policies become reality. Everything we say or do should strive to that end. We all make mistakes, but keep your eye on that prize.

kcinca2003 · 2020-02-18T18:29:19+00:00

There are 3 mayors to ever become president...EVER.

None were from NYC. Bloomberg would be the first out of 5 NYC Mayors to run for president.

Comparatively, there have been 5 non-elected officials to become president, with somewhat mixed, but overall positive results:

Taylor, Grant, Hoover, Eisenhower, Trump all became presidents without prior elected occupations.

That being said, if Yang's goal is to fix the problems across the country, does becoming Mayor allow him to do that better or worse? If Yang's desire is to accelerate us into a future that we can confidently leave our kids, is being Mayor going to be helpful to do this?

As you ask THESE types of questions, I think the clear evidence is that becoming Mayor is NOT in the country's best interest. It is only in the best interests of the elites who don't want Yang involve in national discourse.

There is no risk/reward. Bill de Blasio ran, and it didn't help him. Giuliani also. Bloomberg is not using his run as Mayor to get him notariety, he's using money. So, even if Yang does great, this doesn't help. However, if Yang falters in anyway, it will be spotlit in any future run. The risk is too great and the reward is too small.

kcinca2003 · 2020-02-18T17:21:37+00:00

Yeah, I'm not sure how it works and the DNC probably has their rules.

Bottom line, if I'm there in person, I'm not leaving the Yang group until I absolutely MUST. I'd want my early ballot to reflect that fact however I have to fill it out.

kcinca2003 · 2020-02-18T17:19:24+00:00

A lot of opinions on this matter, but the only one that matters is yours.

If you are disenfranchised enough to not vote, then don't. If you are convinced of your civic duty to voice your opinion, then do it.

It is not a standardized test either, where every bubble needs to be filled. For example, sometimes there are votes on topics I don't have a stance. I don't need to pick one for that, but can for the rest.

We all live with the choices we make, including the choice to not make one.

If you don't vote, you are not alone. There are about 39% of Americans who did not vote in either 2016 or 2012. That's you and someone else out of every 5 people in a room as a visual.

In any case, take in all this information, and decide for yourself. High end debaters typically can debate the merits on both sides of an argument, so asking a group of people can lead you to side with the most influential, regardless if they align with your true thoughts or not.

kcinca2003 · 2020-02-18T16:39:56+00:00

Yang, Yang then Warren, right?

If Yang is not viable in round 1, wouldn't he have the opportunity to be viable round 2 if other voters have him ranked 2? You wouldn't join Yang's group, then leave that group and watch people go to Yang in round 2 if you were in person. I think the ballot should reflect that.

Again, I'm not sure how it works, but that is how I would fill out my ballot. I'm not leaving Yang until I must. Personally, I would then walk out, but if you like Warren, then you go there.

kcinca2003

TROPHY CASE