Correct and discussion mean discussion…
Feel free to reply:
You said that we have 2 validators not oversubscribed.
So this is mean that actually active set of validators covers all demand and all CFG holders could stake their CFG successfully just now.
So we have not oversubscribed validators and this is mean that the demand of staking is completely covered by 55 validators, but at the same time, you ask to increase the number of validators…This is a contradiction.
You’re ignoring that 96% of validators are oversub. There are also 22 candidates waiting.
I think this rate is high and validator increase is needed.
Oversubscribed because users successfully staked 0.4CFG and they would like to stake 0.004CFG?? Really? 
A proposal can also be submitted proposing to increase the amount of min bond.
it means that cfg owners think that their cfg will be bitcoin in the future, even if the amount of cfg they have is small. I don’t think this is a bad thing. After all, people believe in the project that they stake a small amount. It is not right for us to interfere with how CFG holders can stake.
Do you know that 9 out of 55 validators currently do not have on-chain credentials? How could they become validators according to procedures without identity confirmation? If it is possible to become a validator like this, identity information on the chain should not be asked from the candidate validators 
Good day Turk Validator
I will just rechecked the info that you provided in the first message and found a lot of things that do not match the reality:
BIG TIME - not oversubscribed
STAKETHAT - not oversubscribed
BINARY HOLDINGS - not oversubscribed
4dJ7Nt…WpdDGu - not oversubscribed
Most of them have more than 20-50 users who staking now 0.4-2CFG.
You can check this info by yourself here: https://portal.chain.centrifuge.io/#/staking
Analyzing this information and looking very huge amount of validators (not oversubscribed) + validators who have a very small staked amount personally I found your proposal to increase the number of validators +6 useless.
Additional increases of the set of validators will not only decrease the average staked amount but will also decrease the rewards of validators.
We also should not forget about the transition from Validators to Collators in the next couple of months, so this is an additional reason why your proposal is not only useless but will also damage validators earnings.
Summary: I will vote NAY on the basis of the information writing in above.
You can vote whatever you want. After all, I will give a referendum every week. No problem for me.
Thank you Turk Validator
At least you agree with my arguments that clearly show a contradiction in your actual proposal.
In case you would like to create a proposal to increase the minimum amount of bond I would like just to remember you to follow the procedure:
But please note that with the actual situation we have a lot of validators not oversubscribed and around 20+ validators with minimal staked amount ~ 0.4-5 CFG.
So increasing of min. amount of stake will give you the opposite effect. A lot of nominators (0.4-30CFG) will not be able to stake and this is mean that we will get much more NOT OVERSUCBRIBED validators.
If you will need help feel free to ask.
I tried to follow the procedures as much as possible. Yes, if you call it a contradiction: contradiction. Honestly, I don’t need to ask you about our own decisions. Because there is only team in the forum :)) This causes centralization.
Until now you never followed the procedure yet and always started from the last steps. And your prev. messages just confirm your prev statements.
You also avoided any healthy discussion about your proposal.
Maybe you missed again some point, but point 1 and point 2 talking clearly:
First step - 1: - Start a discussion in the forum.
Second step - 2: Comment on any proposal on the Centrifuge governance forum.
Step 1 - Discussion ( NOT ONLY CREATING TOPIC )
Step 2 - COMMENT on (not avoiding discussion)
I will tell you more. Two team members give you suggestions
that you successfully avoided and ignored… And one Team member despite all your violations and ignoring voted for your proposal…
Indeed you should not ask me. This is an open forum where all users could freely express their opinion in POLITE and RESPECTFUL way. This is how forum work 
As a result of avoiding rules and contradiction of your proposal every your new proposal and referendum gain less and less vote.
Now we hit just 1 AYE for your proposal… Even your community and friends would like to support you.
This is just a result of all that was written above.
Feel free to ask for any help or suggestion.
Everyone who has an account can and should post in the forum to participate in governance, the community FAQs and other topics. As far as I know you are no team member and you post in the forum as well.
So your claim is not true
The main reason, to follow the governance process and to post a request for comments as well a poll in the forum first, is to get an idea if the proposal has a chance to attract enough CFG-holders to vote in favor of it.
The responses to your proposals in the forum should give you an indication how likely a positive outcome of a public referendum will be
Thanks for the comments. I’m glad you’re going to vote nay in my weekly referendums. @Tjure07 @ImdioR
I suggest you check out who’s posted on the forum. @Tjure07
I closed the survey. Thank you to everyone who supported. 57% support made me happy.
Good day Turk Validator
0 comments in favor of VOTE and closing the poll manually without any reason, without a deadline just evidence how YOUR community supported your poll and referendum (1 Aya in a few days…)…
You are welcome.
You are an expert in creating proposals and referendums (until now 0 proposals or referendums were approved due to violation of procedure), so hope that in a few months you will be also an expert on the correct procedure of creating proposals and referendums. In case you don`t know or forget I would like to remember you 5 simple steps:
p.s. Also would like to remember to express your opinion in a polite and respectful way. Thank you in advance.
Why would people vote when 2.5 MCFGs have been locked by the team? With the votes you cast, you turn the community away from democracy and turn into a centralist project. For these reasons, my referendum proposals will last forever. You don’t have to worry about the CFGs I spend. CFG is pretty cheap so I don’t feel sorry for the CFGs I spend.
Avoiding of simple 5 steps, not including “image” (in your prev proposals), ignoring suggestions = will bring you to results = FAIL.
Just in a simple discussion, it`s clearly emphasized that increasing the number of validators is useless.
More info you will find here: https://gov.centrifuge.io/t/poll-increasing-the-number-of-validators-to-61/3485/14?u=imdior
Summary In a few words:
But you not only didn`t control this info before opening a topic but also created several proposals to increase +6,+12,+40.
Just because you avoid simple procedure (if you start following the procedure from the last steps this is also wrong (5->1 wrong). Just would like to remember you 1->2->3->4->5…)
If you check the history of governance proposals for Centrifuge, and most recently for Altair, you can clearly see the number of voters who participated in them.
As well the number of contributors to the Altair and Centrifuge crowdloans indicate how decentralized the Centrifuge ecosystem is.
If you consider the feedback and comments you received in the forum to your proposals, you should realize, that increasing the validators by a large number is a risk to the network. Thus everyone, from the team to the broader community, has the right to protect the chain and decline your referanda.
