This is a proposal to remove the quorum requirement for Snapshot votes and return voting standards to a simple majority. A new quorum requirement may be set following this proposal.
Background on the quorum requirement issue can be found here. Quorum was proposed in this Firming Up Governance post on November 15 and voted in via this snapshot vote on December 31.
The snapshot vote of this must reach the 36.8M BANK Quorum in order to be enacted.
- Remove the 36.8M BANK Quorum
- Keep the 36.8M BANK Quorum
Let’s plan a huge media campaign to get this snapshot passed. Doing media stuff getting the word out there. That is our speciality. LFG.
Would super appreciate hearing from anyone who’s voting no, if they’re willing to share why.
I’m voting no because the quorum was put in place for a reason. As a threshold to signify community sentiment or opinion. If we don’t meet that threshold then that means that the community sentiment isn’t as strong as we want it to be. I think we may need to modify the quorum but not remove it altogether.
I believe the intent is to remove this version of quorum so that we can have time to better build a quorum requirement but not hold up the entire dao with the existing quorum requirement.
That is also how I am seeing this.
For context, the quorum was set based on extremely high estimations of involvement, and despite having high involvement, we haven’t met them since for any vote.
This has left us unable to implement snapshot votes despite approval of the vote. Ex, got approval on the GSE vote(26M votes), but didn’t reach 35M BANK vote, so it didn’t pass.
Our plan is abolish the quorum, re-propose the votes so that we can implement the approved votes, then the GSE will re-propose a more researched quorum requirement.
Thanks for sharing why you’re voting no! 2 bits of info:
- The only thing being removed is SNAPSHOT quorums…forums quorums remain intact
- Literally 0 snapshot votes have reached 36M BANK since Sept 30, 2021. Guild funding, project funding, GC funding NONE would have passed if this quorum was in effect.
I voted no for similar reasons to Ap0ll0. Also, the proposal doesn,t have a new quorum listed. The proposal should also include an explanation of why Genesis members aren’t voting (I assume the genesis info is correct).
Is voting occurring on the promise that a new quorum will be put in place? I voted yes but the question came into my head afterwards. It appears that those who are voting no are likely doing so because it’s probably better form to have the back up plan in place before something gets removed
The reason for instituting a quorum is sound. However the choice of 36.8M BANK was arbitrarily set and, based on the data, not feasible to attain. We are therefore hamstrung and effectively unable to pass a snapshot with valid quorum.
We have also released funding for proposals that passed but didn’t meet the established quorum. Technically Season 3 budgets didn’t pass, if we held ourselves to this requirement, yet funding has gone out.
The level of consensus (% of yes votes required to pass proposals) is not at issue here. We shouldn’t be returning to simple majority just by removing the quorum requirement. This should be fixed and clarified if this proposal is pushed to snapshot itself.
I voted no because this proposal doesn’t have a replacement value for quorum. Unfortunately, the real discussion seems to be “How are we going to get the engagement to reach quorum and pass a snapshot vote to change the quorum number?” If Season 3 isn’t legitimately funded then doesn’t BANK have to be held until quorum is reached? In all reality, if we aren’t following governance then what are we following? As mentioned above, my understanding is that there are enough votes abstaining to get the snapshot votes necessary to fund the season and change the quorum to an acceptable number in a combined proposal.
We shouldn’t set another poorly researched quorum, and it will take time to find that, propose and enact.
Also the dao has to keep moving. If we don’t get quorum removed we can’t fund anything large, like the balancer incentives.
To meet quorum we have some whales that have intentionally not voted that will be involved.
This is the biggest reason I’m voting yes, though previously wanted to simply lower it.
IMO we need to pass GSE, set them to review Quorum, and then create a responsible governance framework.
After and if we remove the quorum requirement, will we be instituting another number as quorum? Because if we are, we should base those calculations conservatively: probably take the averages of the voting reached in Snapshot votes in the past, cut it down by 25% or so and then set it.
Frankly we have a lot of work to do on figuring out what quorum means to us and how we can integrate it with the new governance system proposals in the pipe.
But until then we need to get this arbitrary boundary out of our way.
Damn if there is one snapshot that ALL $BANK holders need to get involved and vote on, it is this one!
As someone who is only lightly-involved, I’ve found that knowledge of votes & announcements used to find its way to me much more organically (was seemingly pushed to me) but now I seem to have to go looking and pull the knowledge down. Which is all good if I have the time and wherewithal to do so…
I’m really not sure what’s changed that has caused the information dissemination to be stunted - it might be something on my end! But, theoretically, if this is a wider issue and if other people are experiencing the same thing I am, this could be one of the reasons engagement has declined.
I’m voting yes because I agree that if this is causing proposals to routinely fail then the danger of doing nothing outweighs the importance of preserving the current quorum requirement. Generally, I do lean in favor in continuing to consider implementing a quorum requirement though, and echo @Tetranome’s comment in that regard.