[AGIP-2] Lifting quorum for overwhelmingly supported AGLD proposals

Tokens
#1

[AGIP-2] Lifting quorum for overwhelmingly supported AGLD proposals

Summary:
Lift the 10% quorum requirement if a snapshot vote has been live for at least 7 days and gets a support rate of over 99%.

Abstract:
If a proposal has been live on snapshot for the AGLD community to vote for at least 7 days, and that over 99% of votes were for the proposal, such proposal will be regarded as passed even if the total votes have not met the 10% quorum requirement.

Motivation:
The voting for [AGIP-1] Adventure Gold Tokenomics Proposal v1 has concluded recently. Snapshot The result is 99.45% yes and 0.55% no. The vast majority of the voter was for the proposal to pass. Only one community member voted against the proposal. However, only 2.5m AGLD participated in the vote out of the total supply of 80M, which is short of the 10% quorum agreed in LIP-1 Snapshot
The 10% quorum was set by the Loot community, which makes sense since the vast majority of Loot NFTs are held by community members. In AGLD’s case, however, more than half of the AGLD are stored in centralized exchanges’ wallets, or in liquidity pools of decentralized exchanges. Therefore, it would be a lot harder for 10% of AGLD to participate in a vote than for 10% of Loot to participate in a vote. Considering this difference in token holder distribution, lifting the quorum requirement for an overwhelmingly supported proposal makes sense for the AGLD community.

To prevent the AGIP -1 from being stuck in limbo, and to allow for greater flexibility to AGLD governance in the future, we propose a modification to lift the quorum requirement for not only AGIP-1 but also for all future Adventure Gold DAO improvement proposals.

Specification:

  • The proposal should be well discussed on the community forum before posting to snapshot according to LIP-1.
  • The proposal should be available for the community to vote on the snapshot for at least a week.
  • The snapshot vote should have a snapshot block number that is mined no earlier than more than 24 hours before the start date & time.
  • The proposal should get at least 99% of support as shown in the snapshot vote result after the end date & time.
  • The proposal is retroactive/backward compatible. Meaning that if this proposal is passed the AGIP-1 is regarded as passed as well.
  • For: I support this proposal
  • Against: I am against this proposal

0 voters

4 Likes
#2

I support this proposal.

2 Likes
#3

Support this proposal

1 Like
#4

I support this proposal.

1 Like
#5

Thank you @Hill for writing this! I support this proposal but believe that the threshold should be lower to make it difficult for a single person to tip the vote.

I believe that 80% or 90% may be a safe threshold that still has overwhelming consensus. Using the participation rates from the last vote, anyone with 25,000 $AGLD could have stopped the proposal which seems vulnerable to griefing. With a 90% threshold, 250,000 $AGLD would be required to stop the proposal. With an 80% threshold, 500,000 $AGLD would be required to stop the proposal.

My own preference is for 80%, followed by 90%. We want to ensure that an overwhelming majority represents the community broadly while also ensuring that it’s difficult for a single person to stop a vote.

9 Likes
#6

Fully agree with the proposal and will’s supplement.

#7

Support this proposal and continue the projects’ plan

#8

Recommendations:

  • minimum quorum of at least 2% even in this situation.
  • agree with will that a ~90% threshold would be a good balance between the “overwhelming signal” and preventing griefing.
#9

Interesting. I guess this is better to go hand in hand with a lower threshold for majority?

For example, if we consider >90% as “yes by vast majority”, 2% quorum should be good? If it’s only >80% perhaps 5% quorum make more sense?

My thought process is that this quorum is to prevent “attack by vast majority” (someone setting up a vote, tell no one and just vote with their own tokens, claiming to be passed). Therefore if we have looser requirement on “vast majority”, there should be a higher quorum.

2 Likes
#10

I support this proposal

#11

When does the snapshot start?

#12

I support this proposal.

#13

i support it and i really want it better

#14

I do not own any $AGLD so my vote is irrelevant.

But in general, if a DAO is set up with initial bylaws requiring 10% quorum to change a rule, you can never change the rule without hitting the quorum. Otherwise any majority would abuse that to constantly get their way.

You need to fork.

#15

It looks like this proposal was formally passed on snapshot today. It only had 97% vote.

#16

Lol what a joke. You realise that 80% of the vote is by a single holder address.