[Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction

Proposals Finalized AIPs
47

Hey everyone,

I’ve been following the Constitutional AIP to drop the quorum threshold from 5% to 4.5% for constitutional votes, and I gotta say, I’m not a fan. I get that voter turnout’s been low and it’s tough to hit quorum, but this feels like a band-aid fix that could seriously mess with Arbitrum’s decentralized vibe.

Why I’m Worried

  1. This Screams Centralization
    Dropping the quorum, even by just 0.5%, makes it easier for a small group of big players or super-active delegates to push through major changes. That’s a slippery slope to a few “governing elites” calling the shots. I mean, isn’t the whole point of the DAO to make sure lots of $ARB holders have a say? This feels like we’re handing more power to the whales or the hyper-engaged few.
  2. Temporary Fixes Always Stick Around
    Every time I’ve seen a “temporary” change like this in governance—crypto or otherwise—it ends up permanent. The proposal doesn’t say how we’d go back to 5% or what happens if voter turnout doesn’t improve. Without a clear plan, this could just become the new normal, and that’s not great for keeping things decentralized.
  3. Why Aren’t We Fixing Voter Fatigue?
    The proposal blames low turnout, but why aren’t we tackling why people aren’t voting? Is the process too complicated? Are small holders feeling like their vote doesn’t matter? Instead of lowering the bar, how about:
  • Making voting easier, like a cleaner interface or AI generated summary about what’s up on Arb gov.
  • Tossing in some rewards for voting or delegating (maybe a few $ARB or some kind of governance badge outside the delegates program?).
  • Doing more to explain proposals in plain English so everyone gets what’s at stake.
    Lowering the quorum feels like giving up on getting more people involved.
  1. This Could Look Bad
    Arbitrum’s supposed to be a leader in DeFi governance. If we start loosening rules to make things easier, it might send a message that we’re okay with less community input.

What I’d Rather See

I don’t think lowering the quorum is the answer. Here’s what I’d love to see instead:

  • Rewards for Voting and Delegating: Give people a reason to show up or trust a delegate, like small $ARB payouts or something fun like governance NFTs.
  • Make Voting Simple: The process can be a hassle—let’s streamline it so anyone can vote without jumping through hoops.
  • Educate the Community: More guides, AMAs, or even short videos breaking down proposals could get more $ARB holders excited to join in.
  • If We Must Lower It, Add a Time Limit: If the quorum drop happens, put a hard 6-month expiration on it and only keep it if we see turnout improve.

I’m all for making governance work better, but lowering the quorum feels like a shortcut that could lead to more centralization and less community voice. We should be doubling down on getting more people to vote, not making it easier for a smaller group to control things. This kind of move could set a precedent that’s hard to undo, and I’m worried it’s a step toward governance being dominated by a few.

I’m ARB holder since day 1, never sold my stack nor my delegate incentives, watched bleeding my bag month after month, and I have a feeling that the current direction is more centralization for the sake of speed or under the disguise of efficiency. It feels like something we all have read in history books regarding despotic grab of city or country governance that leads to catastrophic failure. Would love to hear from delegates, the Foundation, or other $ARB holders on this.

4 Likes