An excellent proposal considering the constant growing number of the jupverse community
3 Likes
This vote is important, I suggest to kept open for at least 7 days, a full week, not these 3 or 4 day votations.
3 Likes
makes absolute sense, lets do it! Also, we should revisit the quorum number every so often depending on the DAO size (may be once a quarter?) and adjust it as needed.
5 Likes
Great first proposal to vote on.
4 Likes
Rather than a fixed increase, the DAO could consider a dynamic quorum that adjusts based on the number of active participants or the importance of a proposal. This would allow the quorum to evolve naturally alongside the DAO’s growth, ensuring it remains representative without stifling progress.
5 Likes
I will vote for it to rise
3 Likes
ya, reasonable to revisit the minimum vote for now
But i guess if the DAO keep growing, it is a little bit hassle to keep revisiting the number.
Maybe, in future the minimum vote should be automated, for example, the minimum vote will be 50% of average of the last N vote. Anyhow, just an example, anyone can propose something more reasonable to automate this minimum vote.
When the DAO grow (if the definition is by voting count) then the minimum vote will grow at the same time without need anyone to re-vote again.
3 Likes
well thought and also needed. last voting session had its treshold reached like in a few hours…:D…we need to involve more voters into the voting sessions.
5 Likes
Great proposal mate.
Is this something that could be setup to correspond to the number of staked $JUP & adjusted accordingly for each vote?
3 Likes
Why not more?
Like 150 m
3 Likes
This is simple and easy.much needed too!
8 Likes
Hi JUPiers, so my main issue with the proposal, the straightforwardness of which I appreciate, is that it sets the quorum as a fixed number which to me feels ungrounded.
If my understanding is correct, then what we are trying to figure out is this: For simplicity let’s say the DAO = 100 ppl, then we want to find out the minimum out of those 100 that need to cast their vote, basically what portion of the DAO at least needs to participate so that we can say the DAO was represented enough in that particular vote for that vote to have weight.
In that case I would say 51 as minimum for votes not concerning the DAO itself (e.g. LFG candidates), and 67 for votes impacting the DAO itself.
8 Likes
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. To put a spin on a classic phrase…
“Let’s put our mouths where our money is” and raise the voting Quorum.
J.U.P. is home🚀
4 Likes
This approach should be use to measure the growth and average participation of the ASR program every quarters.
4 Likes
Voting Yes for this one. Just imagine how this will look like in the next 20 years of Meow’s vision. I think we must tweak this from time to time, because we know how fast cats reproduce:grin:
!
5 Likes
I think this is an obvious one. Yes…
We should actually probably agree on a percentage, and make the quorum amount dynamic.
4 Likes
Seems to make sense, probably worth revisiting this more often maybe every 100m more jUp staked?
3 Likes
Agreed, makes a lot of sense, should we vote on it?
5 Likes
This could be a reoccurring issue. Could we propose that each quarter needs 50% of the previous quarters average number of votes?
3 Likes
Makes sense to increase the threshold but why 120m? Maybe share a bit more details about your thought process and how you got to that number and why do you think it is the right one?
6 Likes