[Constitutional] DVP Quorum for ArbitrumDAO: Implementation & Parameters

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

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.

Today, the quorum in the DAO is based on the total voteable supply, but proposals pass or fail based on delegated voting power. That gap has been growing over time, and it’s starting to show. Reaching quorum is becoming harder even when the same set of active delegates consistently participate.

Moving the quorum to delegated voting power is a more honest representation of how governance should actually work. It doesn’t change who has power or how votes are counted. It only changes what we measure quorum against.

We looked closely at the parameters. For non-constitutional proposals, the numbers are very close to where the quorum already sits today. For constitutional proposals, the bar remains high and is still stricter.

There are valid concerns about concentration, but the current system already allows a group of delegates to influence outcomes. From our view, a quorum model that reflects real participation is more robust than one tied to a supply number that rarely shows up.

Overall, this improves governance liveness without lowering standards. That’s why we’re in favour of the proposal.

1 Like

Decided to vote FOR (previously had tentatively indicated ABSTAIN). The max quorum & much of the published research assuages some of my previous concerns. Despite what quibbles I still have, I think “perfect = enemy of good” and top priority should be ensuring that the DAO doesn’t get stuck in a low-delegation standstill. Altho thought did go into the initial (and the current) quorum values, they are still in some sense arbitrary and shouldn’t be taken as sacrosanct. The DAO should respond to the reality of the delegation token distribution and this method of dynamically and continuously adjusting is a more-than-good-enough approach.

2 Likes

Reverie is voting FOR this proposal

  • The DVP model makes a lot of sense because delegated ARB tokens much more closely represent the active voting power than voteable token supply. Since the voteable token supply is increasing rapidly while delegated ARB tokens remain the same, there are likely to be continuity issues under the current model. The baseline recommendations of 100m ARB for non-constitutional proposals and 150m ARB for constitutional proposals make sense given the historic averages of ~104m and ~156m ARB respectively.
1 Like

I voted FOR this proposal because the current quorum system is broken.

The total voteable token supply keeps growing while actual voter participation stays the same, making quorum artificially harder to reach.

Switching to a delegated voting power model just measures the people who actually vote as opposed to tokens that never show up.

1 Like

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.

The GMX Governance Committee supports this proposal and will be voting in favour.

We previously voted for the DVP model as a sensible evolution of Arbitrum’s governance mechanism. The current quorum calculation based on total token supply creates unnecessary friction for constitutional proposals - requiring extraordinary coordination even when active delegates are engaged. Basing quorum on delegated voting power better aligns with actual participation.

On the Parameters

The proposed parameters (0.4 and 0.5 ratios) have been calibrated to match current quorum levels. This maintains the existing threshold whilst implementing the new model.

Areas We’d Welcome Further Analysis

Additional modelling would strengthen confidence in the parameter selection:

  • ARB price decline and large sales - If ARB price falls significantly and large holders sell, delegated voting power reduces. How does the model behave in this scenario?

  • Delegate concentration shifts - What happens if major delegates exit or change their delegation patterns?

  • Post-implementation monitoring - Validating the parameters perform as expected once live

These aren’t blockers for our support. The parameters match current levels, which is a sensible baseline. If the Foundation can provide this analysis, now or post-implementation, it would benefit the DAO’s understanding.

Conclusion

This proposal addresses a real governance challenge without compromising standards. The GMX Governance Committee votes for

3 Likes

gm, voted FOR.

The new approach gives flexibility to adjust the parameters and find the best anti-capture/effectiveness balance.

1 Like

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Manugotsuka, and is based on our combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.

We voted FOR.

Despite our previous position on an earlier version of this proposal, we have decided to support it, as there is currently no alternative that meaningfully addresses Arbitrum’s quorum issues (or other issues mentioned in our post). While the DVP-based model introduces trade-offs, it is the only concrete, technically viable adjustment available at this time to improve governance operability under current conditions.

However, we want to reiterate that this change primarily alleviates symptoms rather than addressing the root cause of low delegation, which remains a structural concern. With only a small percentage of ARB holders participating and voting power already concentrated, this model may further reinforce the issues we are already observing in the governance.

6 Likes

Thank you for the proposal.

It is a very serious issue. Of course, there is a huge need for proposals not to fail because of a lack of votes. This aspect is enhanced a lot by the views of @Griff and @Entropy. I see their points, and up to a level, I do agree with them.

On the other hand, I can understand opposing arguments like these stated by @cp0x. But the thing I align with the most is what @blockful said:

So without wanting to add any noise in the conversation, I end up voting AGAINST. Not because it isn’t important to have successful proposals, but unless having simultaneous ways of protecting the token’s price and the treasury level, the way of deciding the quorum should include factors that would protect the DAO, even though the continuous reduction of the token’s price.

3 Likes

We are voting against this proposal. We agree that the issue of rising Arbitrium supply and constant delegated votes is a crucial issue that needs to be resolved. It’s our firm belief that voter apathy is a concern that directly undemocratizes the DAO. We do not ignore the first issue and it’s an incredibly pressing priority for the DAO that many people have pointed out. That said, although this may solve the issue of not being able to pass proposals in the future due to fluctuations in delegated votes, our main concern is that this proposal does not make a targeted attempt at solving the voter apathy problem (the core issue), and the centralization tradeoffs as well as DAO attack risks seem to outweigh the benefits.

For us, removing an incentive for smaller or inactive voters to participate is more than a necessary tradeoff. We think anything that removes the urgency for smaller voters to vote is critically in the wrong direction. We’d prefer to see something that also takes a stab at improving voter turnout/engagement.

We think this is a well thought out proposal and a great stab at the problem, but the tradeoffs seem too large and forced for us to comfortably agree. We think that there should be voting incentives directly embedded in the proposal, and that this is more important than increasing the ease of passing proposals.

2 Likes

The new DVP-based quorum model makes sense, it ties the quorum requirement to tokens that are actually delegated and participating in governance, rather than the total votable supply. Per the Arbitrum Foundation’s research, voteable token supply continues to increase, and constitutional quorum requirements rise along with it, while delegated ARB has stayed largely unchanged over the DAO’s lifetime. This change better captures real participation and reduces the risk of quorum becoming unreachable in the future.

The baseline values are reasonable and align with historical average participation, the maximum values match what the current system would require at high supply levels. This maintains a high threshold, especially for constitutional proposals. Even after the upgrade, Arbitrum’s quorum as a percentage of delegated voting power would remain stricter than most other large DAOs (as per the supporting research, which I took at its word). The Trail of Bits audit also gives confidence that the technical changes are secure and well-implemented.

Trade-offs are acceptable. While the model may make quorum easier to reach in some cases, hitting quorum is only part of the equation. Passing a bad proposal still requires winning a majority against honest voters, and the Security Council provides an additional layer of protection. Concerns about fewer top delegates being needed (around 13 instead of 18 for constitutional under current estimates) are fair, but this is not unprecedented for the DAO and actually lowers boycott risk, since fewer abstentions can’t block everything. The max quorum cap helps contain risks from apathetic or malicious delegations as well.

Compared to the current path, where rising supply could eventually make governance very challenging, this seems reasonable. I have voted for.

1 Like

Layer3 Voting Rationale: DVP-Based Quorum Model

Vote: FOR

Quorum should reflect active governance participation, not theoretical token supply. The current model creates unnecessary risk of proposals failing on turnout mechanics rather than merit.
The proposed parameters are conservative, closely matching today’s effective quorum levels while introducing structural resilience through floor and cap safeguards. Even post-upgrade, ArbitrumDAO’s quorum remains higher than all comparable DAOs benchmarked. This is a sound governance improvement with minimal practical disruption. Layer3 supports it.

1 Like

I’m voting FOR because quorum should reflect the tokens that are actually participating in governance, not the total supply. In my view, that just makes more sense and better reflects reality. Overall, it’s a straightforward update that makes the system more accurate and fair.

I am also voting FOR.

The problem is real. Quorum keeps rising because it is tied to total supply, not actual delegated participation. That creates a liveness risk and gives a few large delegates effective veto power. DVP-based quorum fixes the core issue by linking thresholds to real governance activity.

So the direction is correct. The trade-offs are understood. We should implement it, but stay aware of the risks and be ready to adjust parameters if needed.

Please refer to the Changelog section for updates to the proposal text as the AIP moves from the temperature check to an on-chain vote.

Ahead of future on-chain vote

By approving DTV quorum, we may be addressing the quorum issue, but we are overlooking another, potentially more serious one.

  1. I’ve seen arguments claiming that as delegations grow, new delegates will naturally join and voter apathy won’t be a problem. That feels overly optimistic. What exactly would drive that?

    • Is the token price rising and attracting buyers?
    • Have delegate incentives improved?
    • Are tokenholders receiving a share of protocol revenue?
      None of this is happening. So what would meaningfully attract new, active delegates?
      It’s unclear.
  2. The more concerning issue is security. At current ARB prices, with the reduced quorum, roughly $17M worth of voting power would be enough to reach constitutional quorum and very likely determine the outcome of almost any proposal. Governance attacks become significantly cheaper.

One might argue that the Security Council serves as a safeguard.
But what prevents someone, at relatively low cost, from influencing the next cohort election and placing aligned candidates on the Council – individuals who may not block certain decisions when it matters most?

If quorum reform is pursued, it must go hand in hand with strengthened governance security. Reducing quorum without addressing attack vectors risks solving one problem while creating a much larger one.

2 Likes

We want to thank everyone for voting in the temperature check and for all the comments and feedback on this topic. As the onchain vote on DVP quorum and proposal cancellation is starting tomorrow, we want to address some of the outstanding questions/feedback.

As concluded in research report 2, ArbitrumDAO boasts one of the highest participation rates in the ecosystem. At certain points in 2025, over 70% of delegated tokens were active in governance, while the second most active DAO by the same metric had a participation rate close to 30%. Over 10,000 wallets have voted in at least one onchain proposal in the last year, and close to 35% of the active wallets have voted in 50% of onchain proposals [data]. While there is room for participation to increase further, especially as a percentage of total supply, that should be pursued independent of this proposal, and there are existing efforts aiming to address this.

As it relates to your other points, please refer to discussions in previous posts, including on security/attack vectors here and here.

Kindly refer to discussions on security in the previous posts, i.e., 1 and 2, as well as the responsibilities of the Security Council outlined in the DAO constitution. Importantly, the DAO has in place several security instruments to block adversarial takeover attempts irrespective of the dollar value of reaching quorum.

We agree with the need to bring more DVP into the system. There are ongoing efforts across OpCo, AF, and OCL to get more tokenholders to delegate their ARB, which have already resulted in an increase of delegated voting power by ~50M in December 2025. We expect that the system will continue to gain more delegation in the months and years to come.

At low DVP values, the baseline quorum value will apply. In the edge case of DVP dropping even further, such that the baseline quorum value is no longer feasible (either active DVP < baseline quorum or DVP < baseline quorum), the DAO will need to reassess how to get more delegation into the system so that decisions are backed by a sufficient amount of ARB.

After the upgrade, the DAO will have a larger cushion between constitutional quorum requirement and participation. It’s also important to note that under the new model, it will be much costlier to pass a malicious proposal or to block a beneficial proposal by forming an abstaining coalition. Please also refer to the previous discussions under the initial research report on how the system adapts to delegate behavior changes.

Both the Arbitrum Foundation and Offchain Labs will be monitoring the performance of the upgraded model, using metrics like voting trends across different voter sets and proposal types (including any DVP quorum impact), DVP and quorum adjustment over time, delegate influx and churn, etc.

1 Like

Thanks for the links, but I’ve already read this information (as it answered my previous questions), and I’m also familiar with the Constitution and the Security Council’s operating conditions.

I’ll reiterate my concerns. If the Council has four members who collude, the Council won’t be able to take any action to prevent the DAO takeover, as a 9/12 majority is required.

Electing four new members dependent on the attacker isn’t a problem, given the low cost of the token (vote). The total votes in the previous round in September was about 100 million – just $10 million.
If I’m misreading the Constitution or if there are other levers of influence to stop on-chain voting, please let me know. I honestly don’t see any.

Post submission review:

Used proposal decoder to find proposal actions: action contract for proxy upgrades and a call to the constitution hash contract (the latter is trivial).

Action contract proxy-upgrades and initializes the core governor and the treasury governor to the same new implementation, as well as the ARB token contract to its new implementation.

Token diff

(Informal) Review:

  • Contract now uses OZ Checkpoints to track the total tokens delegated over time; updates with each new delegation. This logic is analogous to the way delegations themselves are tracked.
  • There is also a new adjustTotalDelegation setter method callable only by the contract’s owner (DAO / Security Council) which changes the value directly; this is presumably to make future updates that affect delegation logic cleaner, and/or for ease of handling security emergencies.

Gov Diff

(Informal) Review:

  • Core Logic for DVP quorum calculation; quorum method now uses total delegated tokens to calculate quorum.

  • Tracks proposer submitters, and exposes cancel method (submitter can cancel).

  • Optional front-running protection against proposal id collisions when submitting a proposal by specifying proposal’s submitter address at end of description. (Note that while this looks good and sensible and seems tangentially related to cancellation, it isn’t AFAICT specifically mentioned in this proposal’s description.) ***(see edit below)

Initialized values (min/max quorums, baseline quorums) match those in the description.

LGTM, voting FOR.

***Edit: I get it now; “front-running” by submitting a proposal with the same ID was previously a non-issue since the proposal ID is deterministically generated from the proposal content and is thus equivalent to simply submitting it. With cancelation, one can grief the submitter by front-running with the equivalent proposal and then cancelling it. This feature is thus a direct implementation detail for cancelation :+1:

1 Like

Voting yes. Quorum is currently based on total token supply, which keeps growing and has less to do with how many people are actually voting. Tying it to delegated voting power just makes more sense because it’s based on who’s actually here.

@cp0x makes a fair point that the top 6 delegates could clear the 100M ARB baseline alone. But those same delegates are already the ones getting us to quorum today. The only difference is that right now, if a few of them don’t show up, the whole DAO grinds to a halt. I’d rather see a vote pass with heavy delegate involvement than watch nothing happen at all. A passed vote can at least be challenged on-chain.

Also worth noting this doesn’t just permanently lower the bar. Quorum scales up as more tokens get
delegated, so if participation grows, the threshold grows with it. That makes way more sense than a fixed number that gets harder and harder to hit.

MUX will vote for.

At its core, it adjusts quorum to reflect the tokens actually eligible to vote, rather than the total token supply. That approach makes sense. As delegated voting power (DVP) grows, the quorum requirement rises proportionally.

The proposed thresholds also strike a reasonable balance: a 40% DVP requirement for non-constitutional proposals and a majority (over 50%) for constitutional changes.