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- DVP Quorum” for this proposal in the Snapshot voting.
The rising quorum issue has been visible for a while now. Since the quorum reduction in May, the constitutional quorum has continued to climb past ~209M ARB, while total delegated voting power has stayed largely flat between 320M and 350M ARB. That gap is exactly what’s making governance fragile, not because participation is dropping, but because quorum has become increasingly dependent on a handful of large delegates showing up.
DVP is a new concept. We see this shift as a practical response to a structural issue, not a silver bullet. Aligning quorum with DVP makes it more reflective of real participation and lowers the risk of gridlock as quorum keeps rising with token unlocks.
The baseline makes sense in principle, but it will need careful monitoring and a check for the governance risks for the same. We’d like to see more clarity later on how this floor could be adjusted with an analysis back.
We think these values are a reasonable starting point. But what matters more is how the spread between constitutional and non-constitutional quorum is preserved over time. If it collapses, upgrade security weakens. This is something to watch closely, not set once and forget.
We also believe participation efforts should run in parallel. A re-delegation week, similar to what we saw in 2024, could help boost active delegation. That would strengthen the DVP quorum model rather than just adjusting the parameters around a static base.
And finally, since this vote is only to gauge community sentiment, we’re supporting the DVP quorum direction because it’s a step that can prevent gridlock in the near future and open up more structured discussion on the exact configuration. We are in favour, but also looking forward to seeing how the final proposal evolves.