# DVP-Quorum for ArbitrumDAO

**URL:** <https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dvp-quorum-for-arbitrumdao/29996>\
**Category:** Technical Discussion\
**Created:** [September 19, 2025, 3:02pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dvp-quorum-for-arbitrumdao/29996 "2025-09-19T15:02:36Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 31

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![OliverBuilds](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/oliverbuilds/32/16404_2.png) [@OliverBuilds](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/OliverBuilds)\
**Post date:** [April 22, 2026, 9:47am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dvp-quorum-for-arbitrumdao/29996/31 "2026-04-22T09:47:22Z")

</div>

I read through everything, and it seems to me that the comment by @PossumLabs gets closest to solving the problem. This is the clearest attempt in this thread to actually identify the real problem rather than just adjust the parameter.

I say that because it rightly

1. identifies that quorum is not the core problem (it isn’t)

2. treats repeated quorum changes as a sign of a deeper structural problem (they are)

3. doesn’t confuse making governance easier to operate with actually making it healthier (two separate things)

4. focuses on the level of real stakeholder participation, not just how votes are counted (the actual problem)

5. recognises that incentives are part of the problem

6. separates symptoms from causes (crucial)

If we’re going to solve this, this is the right direction. Let me explain in more detail, with evidence from previous threads/discussions here, why the comment by PossumLabs is right for each point.

1. **It identifies that quorum is not the core issue.**

2. **It treats repeated quorum changes as a sign of a deeper structural problem.**

3. **It doesn’t confuse activity or liveness with health**

4. **It focuses on stakeholder participation, not just vote mechanics**

5. **It recognises that incentives are part of the picture**

6. **It separates symptoms from causes**

The fact that participation needs to be actively maintained through these programs shows that the constraint is structural, not just a parameter issue.

Those are the reasons why this comment stands out to me - it’s actually diagnosing the problem rather than adjusting around it. If participation and delegation aren’t improving, then any quorum model (and it doesn’t matter whether it’s based on supply or DVP) will eventually run into the same constraints again.

This is also why I’ve tried to map these issues more systematically in a problem register here - across participation, delegation, incentives, and structural constraints - rather than just quorum in isolation because this is just one part of the overall puzzle:

[https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/draft-arbitrum-dao-problem-register-request-for-validation-and-omissions/30787](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/draft-arbitrum-dao-problem-register-request-for-validation-and-omissions/30787)

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dvp-quorum-for-arbitrumdao/29996)._