Or at least more work required on the auditing side of things for Account-based voting....

<center>
![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmUA7oQmC6N1HFuSdfSZhXLjHiNZJdbU8mPRtDztkPqgcC/image.png)
</center>

Today I planned to have a look at @theycallmedan's current Poll in which one lucky community will receive 10,000 delegated Steem Power for a whole year.

https://dpoll.xyz/detail/@theycallmedan/which-steem-project-should-i-delegate-10k-steempower-to-for-1-year/

I was thinking of pulling some alternative metrics, such as:

- What if the votes were stake-weighted (totaling the Owned Steem Power of the voters)
- Subtracting votes from accounts without a post
- Subtracting votes from accounts < 40 rep
- And, perhaps most controversially, subtracting votes from accounts that were created after the start of the Poll
# 

Of course, none of these findings were to in any way alter the final vote counts - it was more for personal interest than anything else.

And so I made my SQL query and gave it a whirl. Damn JSON, he can be a right pain:

```

	select
	IIF(isjson(json_metadata) = 1, IIF(CHARINDEX('/', json_value(json_metadata, '$.votes[0]')) > 0, SUBSTRING(json_value(json_metadata, '$.votes[0]'), 1, CHARINDEX('/', json_value(json_metadata, '$.votes[0]'))-1),json_value(json_metadata, '$.votes[0]')), null) as [Voted],
	count(*)
	from comments where parent_permlink = 'which-steem-project-should-i-delegate-10k-steempower-to-for-1-year' and depth = 1
	and IIF(isjson(json_metadata) = 1, IIF(CHARINDEX('/', json_value(json_metadata, '$.app')) > 0, SUBSTRING(json_value(json_metadata, '$.app'), 1, CHARINDEX('/', json_value(json_metadata, '$.app'))-1),json_value(json_metadata, '$.app')), null) = 'dpoll'
	group by
	IIF(isjson(json_metadata) = 1, IIF(CHARINDEX('/', json_value(json_metadata, '$.votes[0]')) > 0, SUBSTRING(json_value(json_metadata, '$.votes[0]'), 1, CHARINDEX('/', json_value(json_metadata, '$.votes[0]'))-1),json_value(json_metadata, '$.votes[0]')), null) 
	order by count(*) desc


```
# 
The above gave me the following output:

<center>
![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmXPpLwxbpP4pqQgQm7yEnSszRMAfthgmonu6QSFhLT23Y/image.png)
</center>

Scanning the numbers, something didn't look right. @votovzla, 3 out, @steemitbloggers, 2 out, and @team-cn, **58** out out when compared to the screenshot at the top of the post.

And so I simplified the query and ignored looking for the exact JSON.  This included the rest of the comments on Dan's post, but the numbers were still way off.

<center>
![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmRUVBZrpjtz9Qc2ikC3Q9HEno13W7kYKaC25Yk2wuCyMn/image.png)
</center>

And so I phoned a friend who can pull the same data directly from the chain.  The screenshot below is an hour or so behind the ones above, but you get the idea - still a pretty sizable discrepancy:

<center>
![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmeDYkvVAnBQqWtX1d1X1T8Z2rnWxmbhgaHQp1CPZFVAwi/image.png)
</center>

So what could it be?  

The number of entries on the chain, particularly for the @team-cn vote, do not match the count on @dpoll.curation.

Deleted Comments.

The following accounts voted on Dan's Poll, and then deleted their comment on the post.

> 'public-advocate', 'prominent', 'ninedragons', 'vote4u', 'dragon-blade', 'al-amanah', 'mk111', 'worldclub', 'the-excavator', 'woodside', 'quarantine', 'dolphin-power9', 'sukhoi-su', 'simpanan', 'dolphin-power10', 'dolphinp', 'coonawarra', 'whalepower', 'storm-shadow', 'sky-bolt', 'l00', 'the-exocet', 'seawise-giant', 'ballarat', 'freeservice', 'whalepower-guide', 'balancepower', 'tenaga-satu', 'the-reef', 'sbd4vot', 'dolphin-power3', 'steem4vote', 'meko200', 'paul-gillbanks', 'pterosaur', 'bullionstackers', 'globalex', 'c-solstice', 'ppagoda', 'word-of-the-day', 'point-blank', 'v-1', 'dolphin-power6', 'helios', 'applex', 'shenyang-j', 'timeblock', 'bagger293', 'tanaman', 'surion', 'reservoir', 'dolphin-power7', 'cairns', 'author-fund', 'minuteman111', 'dolphin-power8', 'solidgold', 'global-pillar'

# 

Why would you do that then?

And 58 you say? Where have I seen that number before......

-------------------

I think it would be unwise for me to point fingers right now, particularly before @emrebeyler has done a full audit (which he undertaking at present), and so I'll leave my opinions for later.

Just to be clear.  Nothing against @dpoll.curation here, and the great work Emre has been doing for Steem.

------------------

We saw the @steemalliance put their votes out to the public for review, likely after suspecting foul play.  And the above doesn't look great, does it?

Stake-weighted voting back in the game? 

--------------------------

Cheers

Asher