Thank you for putting this up, Arbitrum.
We agree that the 5% bar has been a significant hurdle for constitutional proposals, and a reduction offers a reasonable short-term remedy. However, we have a few observations and alternative suggestions.
Is ~190M really a sweet spot?
Reviewing the last eight non-constitutional proposals, six have surpassed 190M votes. While 215M may indeed be prohibitive, 190M risks swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction, effectively lowering the hurdle below what most ordinary proposals already achieve. Constitutional votes are, by definition, more impactful and arguably should carry a higher bar than routine treasury or mechanics changes.
Possible Alternative Solutions
- Phased or Tiered Reduction
- Short term (4.75% → ~204M ARB)
Reduces immediate friction but stays above the 200M threshold—a psychologically significant barrier that most recent votes have hovered around. - Medium term (after 3–6 months)
Reassess on-chain turnout data. If participation remains stagnant, then consider a further reduction to 4.5% (~193M ARB) or lower.
- DIP Utilization
The strategy utilized by SEED for the Security Council elections demonstrated how DIP can boost early turnout. Mandating a first week vote might be a drag, but we could implement a similar approach where we:
- Offer a small ARB bonus to delegates who vote within the first week of the voting period.
- Structure the bonus to decline over time, encouraging prompt engagement without over-rewarding late voters.
By combining a phased quorum adjustment with targeted incentives for early voting, we can balance accessibility and rigor, ensuring constitutional changes maintain high legitimacy while reducing unnecessary barriers.