Edited for grammar, if you care. I'm afraid you'll have to play the age-old game, "spot the inserted comma":
In Issue Based Direct Democracy (IBDD) the democratic process is a little different to normal voting.
Usually votes are distributed, then people vote. Each person has 1 vote regardless of whether they care or know about the issue. IBDD is designed to produce better results than vanilla [the usage of 'vanilla' to mean 'basic or plain' is a tech thing. You may want to use 'normal' or 'ordinary'] direct democracy by facilitating the reorganisation of votes among voters.
In IBDD, the following happens:
1 vote is given to every voter, and no extra votes are created
Issues enter a period of reorganisation (basically an auction) where voters can trade their vote for credits, or bid on votes (using credits) to pick up some of the surrendered votes
The default is for voters to surrender their vote to the market, and they will receive a share of all the credits traded for votes of that issue during that round
After the period of reorganisation, voting can begin
To reflect this, issues are divided into multiple categories; those which are open for trading, those which are open for voting, and past issues.
It's important to note that the number of credits needed for a vote changes, depending on the issue. If an issue is in high demand, fewer people will surrender their votes, and the remaining votes up for grabs through the auction will "cost" a lot of credits. If an issue is in low demand, many people will surrender their votes (increasing supply) and so the remaining votes will be comparatively "cheaper".
Another important note is that while we use the analogy of money to help explain how votes are traded, they're never sold for cash. We don't facilitate selling them for cash. We do, however, use economic theory to help move votes around, which (if the economic theory is right, and it looks to be) results in a more efficient distribution of votes, which should then result in better choices being made. There are many other benefits too: principally that the problems of both Arrow's theorem and the apportionment paradox are avoided entirely. (They can't be outright solved, but we can design a democracy that is immune to them).