Proposal: Update quorum and supermajority requirements

DAO Archive (SUBMITTED)
41

Not strongly opposed to a uniform 66.7%.

1 Like
42

I think 2/3rds supermajority is probably sufficient.

I donā€™t really see a reason to have zero quorum for any type of vote. 20% has hardly been an obstacle. Zero quorum and 20% quorum for pool fees will probably function the same, so why not keep the objectively more secure one?

I like this. It never made sense to me for highly impactful votes like these to have 20% quorum.

Overall, I would vote for Markā€™s list as-is but would prefer there to be some sort of quorum on every vote.

3 Likes
43

Like this?

TL;DR

  • Whitelisting proposals: 35% quorum, 66.7% supermajority.
  • Co-investments < 1M BNT: 35% quorum, 66.7% supermajority.
  • Co-investments > 1M BNT: 40% quorum, 66.7% supermajority.
  • Liquidity mining: 35% quorum, 66.7% supermajority.
  • Pool fees: 20%, 66.7% supermajority.
  • Governance and protocol changes: 35% quorum, 66.7% supermajority.
3 Likes
44

Agree with these limits, expect for the no quorum requirements on the pool fees, just because I donā€™t think 20% quorum would be an obstacle. Even before the latest round of votes, the average total vote participation was 19% (counting inactive accounts).

As I was typing, @mbr proposed a slightly modified set of rules:

Agree with the changes. A 66.7% whitelisting supermajority can be kept for now and changed if need be.

Iā€™ll update the proposal.

2 Likes
45

Fully support these changes and I am glad we incorporated Liquidity Mining and Governance/Protocol proposals as part of this change as well. I find that these are equally as important (if not more, i.e. governance/protocol changes) and should therefore not have a lower quorum requirement.

2 Likes
46

This seems like a much better model than our current I will support it.

4 Likes