[Constitutional] DVP Quorum for ArbitrumDAO: Implementation & Parameters

[Constitutional] DVP Quorum for ArbitrumDAO: Implementation & Parameters

Abstract

The ArbitrumDAO recently expressed strong interest in moving towards a delegated voting power (DVP)-based quorum model. Consequently, this upgrade, if implemented, will define quorum as:

Quorum = min{max quorum, max{ɑ*DVP, baseline quorum}}

where ɑ, baseline quorum, and max quorum are constants.

This proposal aims to finalize the implementation and accompanying parameters of this upgrade - ɑ, baseline quorum, and maximum quorum. If this temperature check is successful, the proposal will move towards an on-chain vote in February.

Motivation & Context

As it stands, ArbitrumDAO’s quorum is computed based on the total voteable supply, which has no relationship to the tokens registered to vote. This proposal introduces a better approach by basing quorum on delegated voting power (DVP) - a metric that more directly represents the amount of ARB participating in governance and available for voting.

All of the relevant context and motivation may be found in the previously published posts on this topic. The first report focuses on the rationale for the change, the historical performance of quorum, and the security implications of this upgrade. The second report is a comparative analysis of quorum across other large DAOs, as well as shareholder voting in public companies, aimed at presenting insights into ArbitrumDAO’s position relative to comparable systems. The motivation around this update is captured in the initial temperature check.

Specification

Definition

This AIP proposes upgrading to the following quorum computation logic:

Quorum = min{max quorum, max{ɑ*DVP, baseline quorum}}

where ɑ, baseline quorum, and max quorum are constants.

How the Formula Works

The proposed formula works as follows:

  • When ɑ* DVP is lower than baseline quorum, baseline quorum applies.
  • When ɑ* DVP is higher than baseline quorum and lower than max quorum, ɑ* DVP applies.
  • When ɑ* DVP is higher than max quorum, max quorum applies.

In short, baseline quorum and max quorum form fixed lower and upper bounds for quorum.

Proposed Parameters

We suggest the following parameters:

For constitutional proposals:

  • {ɑ = 0.5; baseline quorum = 150m ARB; max quorum = 450m ARB}

For non-constitutional proposals:

  • {ɑ = 0.4; baseline quorum = 100m ARB; max quorum = 300m ARB}

A Trail of Bits audit of the proposed changes is currently underway and will be added to this proposal prior to the on-chain AIP. Note that to initialize the running total, an estimate of the total DVP must be provided as part of the upgrade proposal. A followup proposal can correct any error in the initial DVP estimate, if needed.

Rationale for Parameter Selection

(i) Participation threshold (ɑ)

For non-constitutional proposals, our recommendation of ɑ = 0.4 ensures continuity with the current non-constitutional quorum. At the current DVP of 348.61m ARB, non-constitutional quorum will equate to 139.4m ARB, which is very close to its current value of 145.56m ARB.

For constitutional proposals, our recommendation for an ɑ value of 0.5 aims at creating a safer buffer between voter turnout and quorum while retaining a high voter turnout. Most large DAOs operate with quorum thresholds well below fifty percent of delegated voting power, and corporate and legislative systems rarely employ supermajority quorum requirements. As concluded by research report #2, when quorum is expressed as a percentage of DVP, its value at ArbitrumDAO (~62% of DVP) is roughly double that of the next highest DAO benchmarked. Even after the proposed upgrade, ArbitrumDAO’s quorum would remain higher than all comparable DAOs reviewed by the report.

(ii) Baseline Quorum

Historical participation data of ArbitrumDAO provides strong support for the baseline quorum values proposed. Over the last two years, the average quorum for non-constitutional proposals amounted to ~104m ARB, which motivates our recommendation of a 100m ARB baseline for non-constitutional proposals. For constitutional proposals, the average quorum, excluding periods in which quorum was structurally difficult to reach, falls around 156m ARB, motivating our recommendation of a 150m ARB baseline. These values preserve continuity with observed voting behavior while creating a sufficiently large lower bound for quorum.

Note that baseline quorum values will not apply until DVP drops below a certain threshold. For the constitutional baseline quorum to apply, DVP would need to drop below 300m ARB. At all values of delegation below this threshold, a constitutional proposal will require a quorum of 150m ARB. For the non-constitutional baseline quorum to apply, DVP would need to drop below 250m ARB.

(iii) Maximum Quorum

The implementation also includes an explicit smart contract setting to configure a maximum value of constitutional and non-constitutional quorum. This is a static parameter that can be updated through a DAO vote if needed. A maximum quorum of 450m ARB for constitutional proposals and 300m ARB for non-constitutional proposals are proposed. These values are fully consistent with the current maximum quorum values (where they are defined as 3% and 4.5% of the maximum voteable token supply) and as such aim to retain the status quo on the upper bound. For additional context, DVP would need to go over 750m ARB for the non-constitutional max quorum to be triggered and to over 900m ARB for the constitutional max quorum to be triggered.

Going forward, these thresholds may further act as checkpoints for the DAO to reconsider the DVP-quorum model’s performance in a high-DVP scenario.

ArbitrumDAO Constitution Adjustments

Due to the upgrade’s nature, the following updates will be made to the Definitions and DAO Proposals and Voting Procedures sections of the ArbitrumDAO Constitution, in order to reflect the new way quorum is calculated.

Change 1: Definitions

Old Text

Definitions:

  • AIP: An Arbitrum Improvement Proposal
  • ArbitrumDAO-governed chains: The Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova chains and any additional chains authorized by the ArbitrumDAO
  • DAO Treasury: All $ARB tokens held in a governance smart contract governed directly by the ArbitrumDAO and/or the Security Council of The Arbitrum Foundation via on-chain voting mechanisms.
  • Governed Chains: Any ArbitrumDAO-approved chains that are governed by the $ARB token
  • Non-Governed Chains: Any ArbitrumDAO-approved chains that are not governed by the $ARB token
  • Votable Tokens: All $ARB tokens in existence, excluding any tokens held by The Arbitrum Foundation and any unclaimed airdrops

New Text

Definitions:

  • AIP: An Arbitrum Improvement Proposal
  • ArbitrumDAO-governed chains: The Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova chains and any additional chains authorized by the ArbitrumDAO
  • DAO Treasury: All $ARB tokens held in a governance smart contract governed directly by the ArbitrumDAO and/or the Security Council of The Arbitrum Foundation via on-chain voting mechanisms.
  • Governed Chains: Any ArbitrumDAO-approved chains that are governed by the $ARB token
  • Non-Governed Chains: Any ArbitrumDAO-approved chains that are not governed by the $ARB token
  • Votable Tokens: All $ARB tokens in existence, excluding any tokens held by The Arbitrum Foundation and any unclaimed airdrops
  • Delegated Votable Tokens: The sum of Votable Tokens currently delegated and eligible for governance participation
Change 2: DAO Proposals and Voting Procedures

Old Text

Phase 3: DAO votes on AIP, on Arbitrum One (14–16 days): During this Phase 3, the ArbitrumDAO will be able to vote directly on-chain on a submitted AIP.

An AIP passes if the following 2 conditions are met:

  1. More Votable Tokens have cast votes “in favor” than have cast votes “against” (“Threshold 1”); and
  2. In the case of a:
    • Constitutional AIP, at least 4.5% of all Votable Tokens have cast votes either “in favor” or “abstain”; or
    • Non-Constitutional AIP, at least 3% of all Votable Tokens have cast votes either “in favor” or “abstain” (collectively, “Threshold 2”).

New Text

Phase 3: DAO votes on AIP, on Arbitrum One (14–16 days): During this Phase 3, the ArbitrumDAO will be able to vote directly on-chain on a submitted AIP.

An AIP passes if the following 2 conditions are met:

  1. More Votable Tokens have cast votes “in favor” than have cast votes “against” (“Threshold 1”); and
  2. In the case of a:
    - Constitutional AIP, at least 50% of all Delegated Votable Tokens, as well as a minimum of 150 million $ARB and a maximum of 450 million $ARB, have cast votes either “in favor” or “abstain”; or
    - Non-Constitutional AIP, at least 40% of all Delegated Votable Tokens, as well as a minimum of 100 million $ARB and a maximum of 300 million $ARB, have cast votes either “in favor” or “abstain” (collectively, “Threshold 2”).

Voting Options & Timeline

This temperature check will include two voting options:

  • Adopt the DVP quorum model, alongside proposed parameters
  • Do not adopt the DVP quorum model, alongside proposed parameters
  • Abstain

We aim to take this proposal to a temperature check vote starting 05/02/2025. Following a successful temperature check, the proposal will be put to an on-chain vote.

7 Likes

Appreciate @Arbitrum for putting together this AIP and the thorough research reports that preceded it. At Tally, we recognize the value of aligning quorum with actual governance participation rather than total voteable supply. A DVP-based model better reflects the reality of who’s available to vote, and the proposed parameters strike a reasonable balance between accessibility and security.

Should this constitutional AIP pass down the line, we’re committed to working closely with the Foundation to ensure the new quorum thresholds are clearly communicated from the governance application. This includes displaying the dynamic quorum calculations so delegates and token holders can easily understand what’s required for proposals to pass under the new model.

Looking forward to seeing this move to temperature check, and subsequently to an on-chain vote.

1 Like

We will be hosting a governance call to discuss this proposal on Wednesday.

DVP Quorum for ArbitrumDAO: Implementation & Parameters (Open Discussion)
Wednesday, February 4 · 15:30 – 16:30
Time zone: UTC
Video call link: https://meet.google.com/djy-endq-gwq

2 Likes

I ran the numbers based on the current top delegates and their delegated voting power.
The goal was to understand how many large delegates would realistically be needed to reach quorum under the proposed DVP quorum parameters.

Using the top20 delegates (total combined voting power ≈ 232.22M ARB - the data may differ slightly due to the constant movement of tokens, but this is not significant), we can understand that this is 95% of all the votes that usually vote.

So, we can use only these vote power to see the following:
Non-constitutional proposals
Quorum = min{max quorum, max{0.4 * DVP, 100M}} = max(0.4 × 232.22M = 92.89M, 100M) = 100M

Constitutional proposals
Quorum = min{max quorum, max{0.5 * DVP, 150M}} = max(0.5 × 232.22M = 116.11M, 150M) = 150M

Cumulative totals show that quorum exceeds 100M after only 6 delegates and exceeds 150M after only 10 delegates

In my view, this creates a very low practical barrier.

One of the few structural mechanisms that gives smaller delegates meaningful influence is the difficulty of reaching quorum. Even if a delegate holds a modest amount of voting power, their participation can matter when quorum is not easily guaranteed.

If quorum can reliably be reached by 5 to 6 large delegates, the incentive for smaller delegates to participate decreases. Once quorum is clearly secured, marginal votes feel less impactful. This may increase voting apathy rather than reduce it.

Reaching quorum should not be trivial. It is supposed to require broad participation. That is part of what makes governance resilient and inclusive.


While I support the DVP model and it is conceptually simpler than the common proposal-based quorum model, the current parameterization may unintentionally centralize power and reduce the incentives for smaller delegates to participate.

Lowering quorum may solve one problem, but it may create another.

I would strongly encourage further discussion on whether the baseline thresholds are set at the right level - I think it should be increased.

4 Likes

@cp0x I agree with the points you’ve raised and alsoshare your concerns. Lowering the quorum to a level where 5 or 6 top delegates could effectively meet it on their own would undeniably diminish the influence of smaller delegates, who represent the majority of the voter base which will discourage participation and weaken the broader governance ecosystem

That said, this is roughly ten months too late since Arbitrum Foundation outlined its new strategic vision which explicitly shifts greater authority and operational control toward Arbitrum Aligned Entitiees (Offchain Labs, Entropy, Arbitrum Foundation, etc.). In that context, the proposed quorum change appears consistent with the broader direction they have already signaled: a more centralized governance structure anchored by those AAE.

1 Like

I support the proposal and the parameters as well.

I still find great incentives for smaller delegates to have influence, as voting against a proposal that already has reached quorum signals to the rest of the DAO that not everyone is in alignment, and bystanders/token holders might shift their delegation based on this.

1 Like

Interesting approach, clearer execution tooling is definitely an area the DAO can improve. Looking forward to seeing how this develops.

The computation in your post is a bit strange.

Why is it computing quorum based on 232.22m ARB? Quorum is computed as a percentage of the total delegated voting power which is 349m ARB.

This is ~139m (40%) and ~174m ARB (50%). Non-constitutional is quite close to current value of 145m.

100m and 150m represent safety values for Quorum, and for it to reach that number, total delegated voting power will need to be reduced and that’ll likely impact the voting power of most delegates.