[Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction

[maxlomu]

gm, Voting FOR.

This is a pragmatic fix that buys us time to explore more robust governance changes without blocking progress in the meantime.

[dragonawr]

Thank you. As pointed out, I’m 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.

[paulofonseca]

we might as well reduce it to 4% at this point, to be honest…

I don’t 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%

[EzR3aL]

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 isn’t really tackled.

[0xAlex]

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.

[jameskbh]

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.

[mcfly]

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.

4. 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.

[paulofonseca]

@mcfly

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.

I’m a delegate and $ARB is a way too big of a percentage of my personal net worth, and I approve of this message!

[danielM]

I’m 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, it’s cheap and simple to do. So YES from my site

[paulofonseca]

voting Against on the current offchain vote because I believe quorum thresholds should not be changed with the argument of “to make it easy to pass proposals”. 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.

[Zenithiaa]

As a small ARB holder who consistently votes, I understand the motivation behind this proposal — 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.

I’d 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.

@cupojoseph

lower quorum while price is also lower means less resilience. more votes for engaged delegates means more resilience.

+1

For these reasons, I’ll be voting against this proposal.

[Saurabh]

The following reflects the views of GMX’s 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.

[cp0x]

I voted AGAINST this proposal

Cp0x Delegate Communication Thread

[Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction For Constitutional AIP, it is proposed to reduce the quorum from 5% to 4.5%. The situation has developed that the number of tokens is growing more than the voting percentage The last Constitutional vote took place only after an additional voting period (+2 days), but 243.89M out of a quorum of 210.74M voted, so the voting reserve was more than 33 million ARB However, this decision is one of the worst that exists, since by the ti…

[danielo]

Voting in FAVOUR

• There’s an urgent need for a solution to this issue
• Quorum should not be a defensive mechanism against bad proposals, but simply to ensure no proposals are passed while the majority of delegates are unaware.

That being said, ArbitrumDAO governance still has many issues that this proposal doesn’t solve. So I see a need for proposals that address token holder apathy in selecting delegates and holding them accountable, as well as increasing the number of tokens that get delegated.

[Euphoria]

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.

The current 5% quorum for constitutional proposals has become harder to meet as voter participation has declined and the ARB supply has increased. Lowering the quorum to 4.5% is a practical and necessary adjustment that enables constitutional proposals to move forward without being blocked due to low turnout.

We recognize that this is a short-term fix. As mentioned in our previous comment, we would prefer that this change be reviewed on a fixed timeline before it is implemented, such as after the next six months, so the 4.5% threshold does not become a default standard over time. A fixed review period would help the DAO keep this parameter aligned with actual participation trends.

At the same time, we believe this period should be used to focus on improving overall voter turnout. Ultimately, the goal should not be to continue adjusting thresholds, but to increase participation so that higher quorum levels can be met organically. Strengthening engagement now will give the DAO more flexibility and legitimacy when revisiting this parameter in the future.

Overall, based on the current situation, we support this proposal and look forward to continued discussions around increasing voter participation.

[JoJo]

I’m voting in favor.

Not a lot to add to what was so far mentioned but will try to give my 2 cents on the topic.

• yes, this is clearly a short term bandwith: by the time everything goes live, we are back at quorum level of april
• we can make this measure effective, short term, only if paired with other short term solution such as
  • Increasing, as we saw last 2 months, the amount of delegated tokens to active delegates. This probably comes from a BD print from AF/OCL and should be pursued aga
  • Avoid outcomes like the one proposed for Event Horizon. As much as i can understand the goal of adjusting voting power based on the new scope, stripping EH of 7 millions would negate around 28% of the gain we would get with this proposal
  • There are several delegates, in the top 20/30, with several millions of ARB delegate to them that barely vote. One of them is, for example, Yoav, that was recently elected in the security council. This is just one specific case, but the point is that we need to find a way to involve these delegates, having vested interested in arb or a specific role in the DAO, to be more involved in day to day voting. Knowing how taxing this activity is, we should find a way to facilitate them as much as we can, and starting with AF/OCL contacting them 1:1 with the aid of certain delegates like @krst or others that in past expressed their interest on the topic could be a start.

All of the above put together could give us a breathing room of 2-3 quarters, and let us figure out a better long term solution.

[Zeptimus]

I’m voting in favor of lowering the quorum. As mentioned before, this is treating the symptom, not the disease. I’m very aligned with what @mcfly said - we need to incentivize token holders to delegate their tokens, and delegates need to be incentivized for doing a good job voting. I still love the idea I shared when I first started to engage on Arbitrum: delegates should be paid
on locked ARB so their incentives are aligned with token holders.

[Curia]

We will vote to support this proposal as a short-term solution and believe that we need to explore a long-term fix, specifically a dynamic quorum mechanism tied to real participation metrics to ensure our quorum thresholds remain sustainable over the long term.

[Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction

Thanks for bringing this proposal forward. Governance data is something we’ve been tracking closely in the Arbitrum ecosystem, and we’d like to add context that may clarify the rationale for adjusting the quorum threshold. Key observations Stable votable supply vs. rising votable ARB. The overall votable supply has barely moved—about 353.46 M ARB in Jan 2024 vs. 363.65 M ARB in May 2025. [image] Votable ARB (the amount that could be used for voting) keeps edging upward, but the share th…

[cxgonzalez]

It’s becoming clear that reducing quorum is needed at this point however it sets a worrying precedent. If quorum continues to be altered whenever it becomes increasingly unrealistic to change it, quorum acts similarly to a “debt ceiling” is altered every subsequent year. This kicks the can down the road.

More work needs to be done thinking about how to reverse this trend. That said, I’m in favor of reducing quorum.

[Griff]

I’m voting for this proposal to lower the threshold.

This makes sense as a short-term fix while we work on better long-term engagement strategies.

Hitting the 5% quorum is more difficult than it needs to be, and it’s burning key contributors time who have to chase down delegates just to get votes. That’s not efficient and has an opportunity cost that is hard to measure, but undoubtedly high.