If the quorum amount were to change from 30M, would you want it to be?
Keep it what it is at 30M
Lower it by 50% to 15M
Lower it to something more than 50% (15 to 30M)
Lower it to something less than 50% (1 to 15M)
0voters
Followup my response in @cryptodiplo SIP discussion. I think we have enough voting results from SIPs to start discussing if we should lower the quorum requirements for a SIP to pass. Right now, every vote requires 30M voting power, which is 1% of SANDâs 3B total supply. Most SIPs only get about half that, if theyâre lucky.
Iâm going to submit a SIP to change the quorum amount, but I really want to do this out in the open to garner as much feedback as possible.
I will vote for reducing the quorum to 15m, but, given a choice, Iâd rather have a tier system. For example, as a baseline, quorums should be 10m minimally. It then increases proportionately as the funding amount increases. My suggestion: 10m quorum for the 1st 50k USD and then increase quorum by 5m per 50k USD increment.
Looking at the participations from the recent few SIPs, it seems that most proposals donât lack the number of voters, especially when TSB entices people to vote with giveaways.
Rather, it is with the lack of whale voters voting. In most other DAOs, youâll notice that the constant narration is that âwhales push through the votes, regardless of what the majority chooses.â Unfortunately we are experiencing the exact opposite. Itâs a good problem since it may signify that VP is decentralised enough to reduce that occurrence, but itâs an issue nonetheless.
Quorum shouldnât be an authorâs biggest problem, convincing voters to vote Yes over No should.
@Lanzer, Just going back to the basics a bit about the quorum.
What is the main reason for having a quorum?
What is the purpose of a quorum?
What would be the cons of having a quorum of 1M VP (equivalent to around 225 LANDS)?
Is it correct to say that the 15M quorum creates barriers for small VP communities, like UGC Creators?
A large part of the community is currently seeing the DAO as a funding tool. But I see that it can also be an administrative tool. Therefore:
Is it possible for us to have different types of SIPs with different quorum?
For example, could some types of SIPs have a reduced quorum, while others require a higher quorum because they involve more important decisions?
I first off wanted to say, I really did not want to comment on this as this is so controversial of a topic because of the history involving the TSB voting abuse and lies. Now, my view on this topic of quorum⌠Quorum is/was used to be a thermometer of the interest of a proposal. If a SIP is worthy it will be voted on by the masses, see Magic Palette SIP. If it is a bad SIP, felt by the community, many in the community (such as myself) will NOT vote because itâs not worth voting on. The manipulation of the quorum by TSB voting, regardless if voting neutral just shows the cards of TSB.
I am glad you pointed out that the quorum is only 1% of the SAND⌠so I am going to make this more clear⌠if quorum is not reached then that means less than 1% cares about the SIP⌠That should make it obvious that a better SIP should be drafted, not do something as lame as lowering the quorum bar.
Oh, letâs make this even MORE CLEAR⌠That quorum of 30 MIL (1% vote) is just based off of SAND⌠land owners have 4500 votes per land. So that shows you even more, how much the community does not care about the SIP that fails to make quorum. So if you add in land 4500 votes into the quorum equation, you will see it requires even less voters to achieve quorum⌠which is not being achieved. So when a whale or TSB wants to rig the system and vote they tip the scale. So lowering the quorum would only aggravate and make matters worse!
In closing, if you want voters to vote you have to give them something real to vote on. Something that is clear, concise and benefits the community as a whole. No money grabs, trash SIPs that benefit a small group of friends or region will pass, and my opinion should not pass.
I agree 100% with EscapeRoomArtist on this. The fact that quorum already only requires 1% to vote and we canât even hit that isnât a problem with the quorum number itself, itâs a problem with the SIPs and the outreach. In my opinion, something as big as this with the far reaching implications that these SIPs have, there should be and needs to be a larger proportion of users voting on the SIPs. Iâm going to leave it at that as I have extremely strong opinions on how the DAO and TSB are handling things and find it difficult to word them in a constructive way.
I donât disagree with you on having a tier system. David gave a really interesting recommendation, the algorithmic curve for quorum with a quadratic voting system that CityDAO had implemented. It basically makes it easy to make quorum with low SIP amounts, and harder for high SIP amounts.
For the algorithmic curve, it would look something like, multiple the SIP amount by 500, that is your quorum. So if you ask for a 100 SAND SIP, you need 100*50=5,000 quorum, whereas if you want 500K SAND SIP, you need 500,000 * 50 = 25M quorum. It still needs majority YES to pass, but it no longer needs 30M for a $0 SIP.
For the quadratic voting system, David explained that CityDAO calculated Voting Power as the square root â of a personâs voting power is their voting power. So if I had 1 VP, then the square root would still be 1 VP. But the square root of 1M voting is now 1000. So 1K people with 1 VP now has a shot at making a difference against a person with 1M voting power.
Hmm. Do we really hold a 0 SAND SIP to the same quorum standard as a 1M SAND SIP? I canât think of a strong argument for why this should be true.
There are really good $0 SIPs, like CryptoDiploâs NFT crafting was. In my opinion, it was an obvious good. Could a better SIP be drafted? I wonât say no, but I struggle to think of how his SIP could have been stronger. It was concise, well crafted, and clearly explained.
Personally, I believe the issue isnât with the quorum amount but rather reaching it. I actually think 1% is sufficient. Though, Iâm curious to see how the Delegation will play out. Once Delegation is active (not sure how - through SIP?), we should theoretically see a noticeable increase in voting.
Another idea to throw out there is that we might need to create an SIP to structure how the TSB can use their vote. This SIP could be originated by either the DAO team or the community!
I do recognize that the TSB has the right to vote and can use their vote however they see fit. However, I think thereâs a conflict because they are also on the council. Therefore, structuring a system for their voting power through an SIP might be a good solution!
I agree with you 100% regarding using the algo curve.
The quadratic voting formula that you cited has been seen as the best case in terms of formulation for VPs, but it doesnât come without drawbacks. The biggest issue is that whale voters can simply split up their wallets into smaller ones in order to maximise their VP. In that case, it may become harder for an author to pinpoint whoâs mind exactly they should change unless the whale(s) comes out declaring that xxx are their wallets.
These will also apply to the existing model but my concern is that if we move towards quadratic voting, we may push whales to change the way they vote to maintain influence.
I think itâs fair to say that thereâs never a perfect model for VP distro, otherwise itâd be universal by now.
Did David mention about whether their voters have had a change in voting patterns? E.g whale wallets suddenly becoming smaller or disappearing altogether may signify that theyâve moved assets around.
Hi all,
Reading all of you I have the impression that the discussion about changing the voting power is not necessarily the good way of doing to solve the quorum issue. Reason being that as soon as you touch the VP it has a lot of other implications, debates about representativeness and risk of biaised voting.
If we focus first on the quorum it might be easier to find a solution, keeping VP discussion for a later.
I like very much the tier approach and voting power based on amount of sand requested. Maybe with one modification compare to what Lanzer said I would keep a minimum of 10-15 millions (see reason at the end) for every SIP and start the calculation from thereâŚ
But to find the best numbers I have the feeling we need to see the outcome of the delegation.
@Lanzer Even if it is a 0 sand SIP it can potentially consume a lot of TSB developper time that is the reason number of sand should not be the only metrics in the quorum calculation and a min quorum at 10-15 might good
Question first⌠was this SIP properly advertised to draw the attention it âdeservedâ? I ask this because I donât recall hearing anything about this⌠in an election, if you donât hear about a candidate and/or their policies, what are the chances they are going to get voted in? Zero! Did alot of people promote this SIP? Once again, if the SIP is good people will vote!
Statement⌠Dollar figure does/does not establish a good SIP. I want to apologize if I indicated that to youâŚ
Thatâs a good idea⌠Thatâs probably a good one to SIP as well. If I can remember, I write up another SIP idea for guidance on Sandboxâs 27M voting power
Hmmm. I hadnât thought of it like that @DAO . I suppose that has a drawbacks too, because theyâd have to vote with each wallet individually⌠I can see all this can get tricky real fast.
David did mention a change in voting power, but it was more related to how council members split up into nationalistic rivals (he specifically mentioned the Turks versus in Asian country). I donât recall him mentioning a change in voting power resulting from quadratic, but I think thatâs a good question to ask him because maybe he might remember something specific.
Thatâs true @KCL , Thatâs definitely something thatâs happening right now with my SIP-14, where even though itâs a 0 SAND SIP itâs got to go to the Sandbox product team to finish. Iâve been thinking about that a lot these past few days.
Itâs been mentioned a number of times, yes. Especially when three SIPs failed quorum in a row (8-10). I think it started really become the conversation that it is now when SIPs 11 and 12 only made quorum because Sandbox voted with 27M voting power, and then Sandbox didnât vote for @cryptodiplo SIP 13.
So now weâre faced with the situation where sandbox will sometimes vote with their 27M voting power, and then sometimes wonât. And because it now seems like thereâs a greater than 50% chance a SIP wonât make quorum without Sandbox vote, we need to solve this problem ourselves if we donât want it to get out of control.
My apologies for your confusion⌠I was talking about cryptdiploâs SIP did NOT get my attention and was not on my radar at all as I canât recall hearing about it. You are a marketing guy if I am not mistaken⌠so you know this is true more than me, if it is not advertised and promoted it will go silently in the darkness⌠but lowering the bar on quorum is a failure to the system. Since less than 1% (current quorum) does not get reached⌠Why not just remove quorum requirement? YES, that is sarcasm!!!
That seriously sounds like a ridiculous question to me⌠yes, the failure & manipulation of most of the previous SIPs has provided the data to give you your perception of it, so I understand where you are coming from but let me explain it this wayâŚ
I feel it needs to be looked at a bigger picture/perspective. For a SIP to be truly successful (meaning voted on without quorum manipulation) it should be:
Well thought out and planned proposal. Think about it as an actual business plan if you were to go to a bank for a loan. The bank wants to know they will have a return on investment.
Properly marketed & promoted. Think of this like a âkickstartâ crowdfunding event. No matter how well your business plan is, if your âbusinessâ never reaches the public, it fails.
Without either of those missing, a SIP should fail. Now to answer more directly, Yes, I feel the less that 1% quorum is sufficient. We are talking that more than 99% does not have to be counted for it to pass⌠I think thatâs the part that confuses those who believes we should lower the quorum. Letâs clarify this even more⌠thatâs the equivalent of $1 vs $99. 1% is not that big of a number⌠very reasonable.
What is the importance of having quorum in DAO voting?
Should it be low or high?
Hereâs the answer without any changes:
In a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO), having a quorum (the minimum number of votes or participants required to validate a decision) is essential for ensuring legitimacy and preventing manipulation. Hereâs why it matters:
Importance of Quorum in DAO Voting:
Prevents Minority Control: Without a quorum, a small group of participants (or even a single individual) could pass proposals with little or no community involvement, potentially compromising the interests of the majority.
Ensures Representation: A quorum guarantees that a sufficient portion of the DAOâs token holders or members have participated in decision-making, reflecting a broader consensus.
Increases Legitimacy: When a proposal passes with a large number of votes or with significant participation, it signals that the decision is backed by a substantial part of the community, enhancing trust.
Mitigates Voter Apathy: It encourages more active participation. If members know that proposals can only pass with a certain number of votes, they may be more likely to engage in governance decisions.
Should Quorum Be Low or High?
Low Quorum:
Pros: Easier to achieve, meaning decisions can be made quickly even if participation is low.
Cons: Risks decisions being made by a small, possibly unrepresentative group, which could harm the integrity of the DAO.
High Quorum:
Pros: Ensures broader participation and that decisions are more likely to reflect the communityâs overall sentiment. Adds legitimacy to proposals.
Cons: May lead to decision-making gridlock if itâs hard to meet the required number of voters, especially in larger DAOs with more passive members.
Optimal Quorum:
The ideal quorum depends on the DAOâs size, purpose, and level of community engagement. A balance is keyâif set too low, it undermines decentralization, but if too high, it risks impeding governance. Many DAOs adjust quorum levels based on the significance of the vote or use dynamic quorum thresholds, which adapt based on recent participation levels.
Itâs not obvious to me why that would be a ridiculous question, EscapeRoom. The most high-profile DAO, ApeCoin, doesnât even require a quorum. It only has 153K token holders compared to our 211K, but ApeCoin DAO has 4.5 times the amount of voter participation we have.
Mia Bao, founder of DAObase.ai, mentioned how most DAOs struggle with quorum, and that delegations increase voter participation by 70 to 80%. Even with that increase, our 10 to 16M average range of quorum VP would only increase to 17 to 27M. Still not enough to meet 30M quorum.
What is the main reason for having a quorum?
What is the purpose of a quorum?
What would be the cons of having a quorum of 1M VP (equivalent to around 225 LANDS)?
Is it correct to say that the 15M quorum creates barriers for small VP communities, like UGC Creators?
Is it possible for us to have different types of SIPs with different quorum?
