gm, Voting FOR.
This is a pragmatic fix that buys us time to explore more robust governance changes without blocking progress in the meantime.
Thank you. As pointed out, Iām aware of the current short-term need. Will be voting FOR on Snapshot to aid that, but looking forward for future quorum revisions, especially in regards to how Abstain votes are counted.
we might as well reduce it to 4% at this point, to be honestā¦
I donāt agree with this proposal, but at the rate quorum is increasing, if we are going through all the trouble of passing a constitutional proposal to reduce the constitutional quorum and end up in the same place, we might as well buy us a little bit more time and reduce it to 4% instead of 4,5%
Im going to Abstain from this vote. I do get the rationale behind it, but as many people said, what will stop us from lowering even more?
Instead of looking at this, there should be more and bigger, more active delegates. But it seems like this isnāt really tackled.
2 Likes
I am voting FOR this proposal. I believe decreasing the quorum to 4.5% is a good short-term approach to avoid paralysis.
However, in the medium and long term, I suggest incentivizing higher participation, delegating some voting power (VP) from the Arbitrum Foundation (AF), or allowing ARB holders to stake and mandatorily delegate their VP to an active delegate. Indefinitely lowering the quorum is not a long-term solution, as it increases the risk of a governance attack.
I voted FOR. While this is a temporary solution, it recognizes that the problem exists and provide extra time to formulate a long-term solution.
1 Like
Hey everyone,
Iāve been following the Constitutional AIP to drop the quorum threshold from 5% to 4.5% for constitutional votes, and I gotta say, Iām not a fan. I get that voter turnoutās been low and itās tough to hit quorum, but this feels like a band-aid fix that could seriously mess with Arbitrumās decentralized vibe.
Why Iām Worried
- 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. Thatās a slippery slope to a few āgoverning elitesā calling the shots. I mean, isnāt the whole point of the DAO to make sure lots of $ARB holders have a say? This feels like weāre handing more power to the whales or the hyper-engaged few. - Temporary Fixes Always Stick Around
Every time Iāve seen a ātemporaryā change like this in governanceācrypto or otherwiseāit ends up permanent. The proposal doesnāt say how weād go back to 5% or what happens if voter turnout doesnāt improve. Without a clear plan, this could just become the new normal, and thatās not great for keeping things decentralized. - Why Arenāt We Fixing Voter Fatigue?
The proposal blames low turnout, but why arenāt we tackling why people arenāt voting? Is the process too complicated? Are small holders feeling like their vote doesnāt matter? Instead of lowering the bar, how about:
- Making voting easier, like a cleaner interface or AI generated summary about whatās 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 whatās at stake.
Lowering the quorum feels like giving up on getting more people involved.
- This Could Look Bad
Arbitrumās supposed to be a leader in DeFi governance. If we start loosening rules to make things easier, it might send a message that weāre okay with less community input.
What Iād Rather See
I donāt think lowering the quorum is the answer. Hereās what Iād 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 hassleāletās 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.
Iām 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 thatās hard to undo, and Iām worried itās a step toward governance being dominated by a few.
Iām 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.
3 Likes
Iām a delegate and $ARB is a way too big of a percentage of my personal net worth, and I approve 
of this message!
1 Like
Iām voting for this cuz it makes it a bit easier for good ideas to get passed in ArbitrumDAO by dropping the vote threshold from 5% to 4.5%. It dont mess with the system too much and lets more folks have a say. Plus, itās cheap and simple to do. So YES from my site
voting Against on the current offchain vote because I believe quorum thresholds should not be changed with the argument of āto make it easy to pass proposalsā. That is admitting defeat and not addressing the underlying problems. Also, this change is not big enough to make a difference, it only buys us a few weeks. It is becoming more and more of a risk for the DAO to have a treasury with ETH and an ever decreasing governance participation and the price of $ARB going down. With this change, we are getting more and more into a very dangerous territory, of being the target for a governance attack.
As a small ARB holder who consistently votes, I understand the motivation behind this proposal ā but I believe lowering the quorum without addressing broader participation issues sets a risky precedent.
Several delegates have rightly pointed out that reducing the threshold increases the governance attack surface, especially given the size of the treasury and current ARB price levels. I share those concerns.
Iād prefer to see stronger push on long terms solutions as already mentioned in this thread (like delegation incentives or flexible quorum) rather than adjusting core safeguards.
+1
For these reasons, Iāll be voting against this proposal.
1 Like
The following reflects the views of GMXās Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
This proposal makes a small but reasonable change. Lowering the constitutional quorum from 5% to 4.5% to help constitutional proposals pass as voter turnout shrinks compared to the growing votable supply of ARB. The 0.5% cut is a cautious fix that matches current voting habits, preventing good ideas from failing just because not enough people vote.
As Entropy point out, even the current quorum is barely being met, and average turnout is now below the required threshold. While this tweak helps in the short term, the DAO should also work on bigger, long-term fixes to increase the participation. The proposal is low-risk and efficiently implementable.
We strongly recommend the Foundation (or AAEs as a collective) come forward with a medium- to long-term solution for this within the next quarter to ensure we do not simply repeat this vote within the next year, lowering the threshold again.