The current quorum for governance voting is 40% of staked luna. But, as the terraform labs takes significant amount of voting power(roughly 47% of total voting power). If the terraform labs sit out of the vote the actual quorum goes up to 75%(40/53). What this number actually represents is, considering the current participation, while the terraform labs remain passive, the proposal will highly unlike to pass.
The goal of this proposal is to make quorum more realistic considering the terraform labs voting power. As the current voting power is about 250mil and the terraform labs voting power is about 117mil, I suggest 40% of voting power except terraform labs voting power for the quorum. The number will be (250-117)*0.4/250 = 21.28%. To keep things simple, I suggest to decrease our quorum from 40% to 20%.
Would love to hear your thoughts or alternate proposal.
I mean obviously the best solution would be to decentralise Terraform Labs holdings more, but as a short term solution I think 20% is fine, as long as there is consensus that this is only supposed to be a temporary solution.
Edit: Just saw that only two validators colluding would be sufficient to have any outcome they want. To have at least 4 different validators, I would suggest to only reduce it to 35%. That way it would at least require the top 4 non terraform labs validators to collude.
@Christopher two top validators colluding (BHarvest and Hashed) would only mean that the vote would clear quorum, not that they would be able to pass any proposal they would like. The purpose of defining a quorum threshold is to make sure passed proposals have support from a sufficiently large body of luna holders, and i think 20% accomplishes this.
It’s practically not possible to activate all token holders to overturn a collusion by two validators who would clear 20% just by themselves. Still think 30-35% is the safer choice for the short term.
I think it would be more prudent to address the real underlying issues, which are validator abstinence from votes and Luna concentration within Terraform Labs.
One way to incentivise more validator turnout during the votes is to make those that abstain completely more visible within the Terra Station.
If they are the only ones voting, still means that only 2 validators can vote in changes. No?
So Chorus One will be voting no on that one. In our view, it’s good if there is a reasonably high threshold for passing governance proposals. Even if that requires the participation of 75% of the non Terraform Labs voting power that does not seem that unreasonable.
Also, if you look at the reality of governance on Terra, not meeting quorum has rarely been an issue for not getting proposals passed.
The only proposal that had majority Yes but didn’t meet quorum was the one about how to sort validator list on terra station. (https://station.terra.money/proposal/5). At least in my view, it’s also totally understandable that people didn’t vote on this since resorting to on-chain governance to decide on a UI issue of an application seems misguided.
I share similar thoughts mentioned above. Reducing the quorum from 40% to 20% could be a bit too drastic in one short. Since the issue of not getting quorum to pass critical proposals is limited at this stage, we could do such quorum adjustment in more cautious steps, such as to 35% first.
I think we can still try to encourage more express participation from all validators, before we have to resort to significantly reducing quorum. Some proposals that got less participation could mean that some validators didn’t want to vote yes and so remained silent.