what i find quite catastrophic is that there is a private chat between aggro and cryptomancer that says something different than what is in proposal 3, and this private chat made people vote yes even though the proposal itself says something completely different. in the proposal itself, the only condition for the refund is that there was no airdrop and that no package was opened. that was also the reason why the proposal was rejected. and suddenly this private chat appears, throwing the whole proposal out the window and making people vote yes. then how credible is such a proposal anyway?
As I mentioned, I am in total agreement with a subsequent / follow-up vote to provide greater clarity on who is eligible for a refund and who is not.
But I don't think the reasoning is because of supposed "manipulation" (which I don't think is the case). I think private discussions are okay but this exchange between Aggroed and Cryptomancer illustrates how there was ambiguity and uncertainty regarding who Proposal #3 would apply to, so I think some subsequent votes would allow SPS stakeholders to narrow down the criteria and vote on it.
it is too late for a subsequent vote, on the 27th there will be airdrops.....