Quorum for proposals

Summary:

We are really excited that you are starting to use the governance tools at hand, but we want to ensure that the proposals put forward by the community are of high quality and have been properly digested, with community members given the opportunity to add to and debate any changes before they are voted in.

In line with the above, this proposal intends to establish a Quorum for proposals so that any changes represent the interests of the majority of the Herd. The suggested Quorum is 3% of the circulating supply at the time of snapshot for a given proposal.

We strongly encourage you to discuss ideas in the various channels provided (Telegram/Discord) for informal discussions that can then be taken to the Forum once they have been discussed and edited appropriately. Discussions can, of course, start from the Forum as well.

If this suggested Quorum is accepted the criteria for proposals to be considered valid will be as follows:

  • Proposals must have a corresponding forum post prior to any proposal being made on signal, with a reasonable amount of time given for the community to contribute to the idea(s) put forward.
  • Proposals must be made in the format outlined here in order for them to be valid.
  • Quorum must be reached with at least 3% of the circulating supply used for voting. Proposals that do not meet quorum cannot be considered valid.

We will build a tool so that the Herd is able to see the amount of SDT required to reach a quorum. We are also working on a way to allow voting with staked SDT.

Abstract:

We need to consider that a quorum must be reached for future proposals to be considered valid. Proposals that do not meet quorum cannot be considered valid.

Motivation:

To ensure fair community participation for any suggested changes to the protocol

For:

Community participation in the governance of the protocol.

Against:

Timelines for proposals may be slightly extended.

19 Likes

I have no objections to this proposal.

1 Like

Seems reasonable. I expect whales and early stake holders to make most of the initial proposals. Based on upcoming strategies, I think we’re in good hands.

1 Like

Great example on how to make a proposal, should serve as template for all others.

I agree with the 3% total supply signaling/quorum.

1 Like

A range of 3-5% circulating supply quorum seems to be the correct way to go.

1 Like

Could LPs have a say in snapshot votes? Would it be something easy to implement?

3 Likes

I agree with this proposal only if staked SDT can be used/counted for the voting power. If a person is staking that most probably means he/she believes in the project and should be allowed to cast their vote IMHO.

1 Like

Agreed, but I’d argue to prioritize to allow voting with staked SDT.

As @Sams95 points out, SDT-ETH stakers are more likely to be long-term contributors to the DAO than regular SDT holders. The latter are more likely to be individuals who focus on farming (and dumping) SDT via staking of their Strategy tokens.

3 Likes

Complete support of this, let’s filter out less qualitative proposals

2 Likes

Support given
Favorite 5%

1 Like

Perfect, 3% is ok for NOW. In the future this should be changed when we have more supply available.

Like Mark, let’s filter out less qualitative proposals.

1 Like

I agree with this, something is in the works for this already and will aim to co-ordinate this with the implementation of quorum.

1 Like

I’m all for it but find the 3% to be a bit low. Is that the usual quorum used in other DAOs ? I would say that it has to be a least high enough to avoid reaching the quorum with the top 20-25 wallets only. Or maybe having a dual quorum system (% of circulating supply + % of existing wallets) ?

Support this proposal, however 3% does seem a little low.
Governance turnout isn’t usually great amongst holders so I can see why keeping it low initially makes sense (we don’t want to become UNI :wink: )

Does this refer only to single-asset SDT? Will SDT/ETH LPs also get voting rights?

I am 100% on board with a quorum system. 3% seems fine for now but may need to be adjusted. There is no question there needs to be some minimum amount of informal discussion obviously it may take a few tries for people to get it smooth but probably with the help of some good mods can keep the informal flow on discord/telegram and bring the more formalized tweaking discussion to the forum leading to vote.

This member of the herd approves!