Exactly the opposite. If total staked falls under 120M, the DAO would never get a quorum. With 30% the quorum would auto adjust
4 Likes
Yes! Great proposal. 120mil is reasonable but I think we should revisit this number each new quarter, the DAO is growing
2 Likes
30% seems a better option than raising it again every few months
One interesting thing to see would be a distribution of Jup across wallets, so we can make more informed decisions on quorum. For example, if a very small cluster of closely connected wallets can influence quorum significantly, we would need to adjust it higher
Some feedback on the Jup Research site discussion - it doesnāt mention the amount of total staked Jup to put the 120M increase in context. It also doesnāt explicitly say that āvotesā = staked Jup. My normie friends who I helped stake and vote would likely get confused there
3 Likes
Yes increase it to 120
3 Likes
Sounds greatā¦ you guys have been working hard 
3 Likes
Oh to me :
-
Right now , we have over 400M votes, 60M is just less than 15% of the total jup staked which is far more low
-
I also compared vote from the past , the least vote we had is 140M which is more than 120M and the vote is first proposal on jup Dao
-
judging again with todayās activities, we reach 60M votes in just 30 mins after the proposal is live and we still have 3 days , 23hours, 30 mins to go
-
as of 2hours 30 mins after proposal went live , we reach 120M , which will be the future threshold or even 30% of jup staked
-
I voted 30% of jup staked cos it is not fixed , even if total jup staked dropped to 100M , 30% will still be calculated and we will have threshold.
My point : Threshold should be dymanic , cos voting power is dynamic too
So Iām going for 30%
7 Likes
Good morning JupDAO Legends & Catdets 
!
This is an outstanding take by the JupDAO Team, and I believe it is the right move at this moment for the JupDAO as a whole. The only concern I have is security oriented concerns - if a large amount of $JUP is obtained via any number of malicious avenues, then the 120 million $JUP threshold will not hold much weight, and it will need to be adjusted to reflect X% of overall staked $JUP to truly avoid this potential issue. I would, instead, be more keen on taking both options here; Option A & B, together, should stifle any future scenarios for us. Would like to see the 120 million $JUP threshold paired with the X% of overall staked $JUP, and would support this move more so than choosing just one of these options.
Thank you for continuing to set the standard for Solana DAOs, and really, Web3 DAOs as a whole! Appreciate your never-ending efforts to push the space forward, true legends.
Best Regards,
Selly 
2 Likes
This matter looks simple, but also very important one that should be seriously considered.
If Jupiter keeps going on with this stable and dynamic evolution and then has more power and impact, many institutional powers or whales could try to influence the direction.
So, you need to take a look deeply. Maybe we could see more and then adjust next time I believe.
2 Likes
Increasing the quorum requirement aligns with the projectās growth. Setting a fixed percentage of the total staked JUP at the time of the vote would be a reasonable approach. Referencing the last voteās low quorum, a higher threshold like 120 million JUP would ensure broader community participation and stronger decision-making.
2 Likes
I want to start by saying Iām very supportive of this proposal and appreciate the work thatās gone into it. This is an important decision, and I believe a bit more time discussing it could help everyone understand the significance of quorum.
I personally support setting quorum as a fixed percentage of either the circulating supply or the amount staked in governance. However, this raises the question of how such a system would be enforced.
For example, if staked assets grow to 500M, will the voting program automatically adjust quorum accordingly, or will this percentage require manual updates with each vote?
3 Likes
This is not very PPP, what if someone finds jupiter now, and starts staking and votes in 1 proposal only? Why would they not get ASR? Their voice is heard, and they contributed to governanceā¦
If you vote in all the proposals, you qualify for more rewards. If you vote in only 1, you get less rewards. The quorum for asr as you call it is 1 proposal.the more you vote in, the bigger the rewardā¦ Thatās super fair. The incentive is already there. Bob has all the data to make the decision he wants. If heās locked without voting Idk what heās thinking tbh lol.
Quorum will most likely be linked to the total jup staked amount. If the total jup staked amount decreases, so will the quorum, there is no risk. 30% does not even represent the majority of Total jup staked, I donāt think thereās any risk here not to meet quorum.
A lot of focus lately on this forum on how to penalise some stakers or increase share of rewards for those that didnāt miss votes, all these PvP thoughtsā¦
Create oportunities and processes that make everyone a winner, no matter when the join, thatās the not so secret Jupiter ingredient imo.
3 Likes
Quorum increase makes sense, definitely support the increase. Although I am surprised thereās not much vocal support for the 30% of total choice.
To me this choice makes sense as sudden changes in the amount of Jup staked could cause issues if quorum was set at a specific number, rather than a function of the total.
- Sudden increases would get us to situations like now. A need for a vote to alter the quorum to make sure vote results are representative of the community. This process could delay subsequent votes, making the dao less nimble.
- Sudden decreases are much more problematic. Such as a situation where we are unable to change quorum requirements because the current quorum limits cannot be met. A very bad situation.
This is also about efficiency of voting as well. Assuming we have two more votes this year weād be at a total of 12 votes a year. That means 16.6% of the votes are not actually impactful.
Tldrā¦
āSet it and forget itā
- Ron Popeil
7 Likes
As the chart in the posts suggests, voting participation is trending lower. While an increase to 120mm for Quorum wouldnāt necessarily result in a quorum failure now, itās only a matter of time before it does, and when it doesā¦ especially in a market downturn, this will result in a constant failure of governance quorum being reached. The DAO should consider a solution to the problem of Voting participation trending lower. My solution resolves this and enables the Quorum increase.
3 Likes
@Scarletsynth in regards to PPP, yes I agree. The formula could take into account Voting participation since their Staking began as being the denominator.
I believe that some will stake without voting, as theyāre not concerned with actually participating in governance, but hopefully earning airdrops etc, without fully understanding the requirements or formula. If the DAO were to implement a threshold for ASR based on minimum participation %, this would align everyone, and ensure a Quorum Failure would be mitigted.
In regards to Staked Jup Quorum, Iām referencing the postās chart showing a consistent decline in voting participation; itās trending lower.
My solution isnāt meant as a penalty to inactive members or a stimulus to active members, merely an economic model to help increase voting participation, that way an increase in Quorum wouldnāt directly result in a Quorum Failure on a consistent basis.
Hope this helps?
6 Likes
I think the 2nd option should be reconsideredā¦
Few accounts can pull the 30% while chunk of small stakes have no say in the decision making.
3 Likes
Personally, I find pegging the number of votes for Quorum to a fixed percentage makes by far the most sense. This will make it so we donāt have to make this vote over and over again as Jupiter continues to grow. There also may be times of market volatility in which large numbers may decide to unstake their JUP. Pegging it to 30% accounts for all fluctuations. So I am in favor of the increase regardless, but I also think to do that as a ratio/percentage, rather than a fixed number, truly solves this.
5 Likes
Not quite, I think the graph is trying to explain that even tho participation has gone up, (raising the number of total votes), the quorum has been the same, making the percentage of votes needed for quorum, in raport with total votes casted, smaller and smaller. Since the total votes number is actually growing. Participation is trending higher and the Jupuary vote will set a new record I think 
.
Good idea but it will still be twice as painful for people that miss a vote, it can happen, and it already results in less ASR, but making that mistake repeatedly could mean no rewards even for the votes you did make it to? I still prefer the āmore involved more rewardsā approach, even tho I never missed a vote, itās not as harshā¦
Yes youāre right, this is already the case, there is always a difference between total jup locked amount and the total dao votes casted on any proposal, most likely because some donāt understand they need to actually vote, and of course some occasionally forget and miss a voteā¦
Iām not opposed to experimenting with improving this of course but tbh the current model is really good. As a minimum treshold you have to vote at least once, and the incentive to keep voting IS substantial because the more you vote the more ASR you get.
I appreciate that, and your creative attempt and preventing this from happening 
. If the 30% option wins (which would be ideal, imo) I just donāt think Quorum Failure will be a problem, while ASR is running in its current format. Even if the market takes a serious downturn, itās reasonable to expect the actual total number of staked jup will decrease too, at almost the same rate as participation, and than the quorum will dynamically adjust to thatā¦ I think thatās the best solution to prevent quorum failure while respecting the need for a quorum.
4 Likes
Imma have to agree. Fixed is best. Less to monitor and self adjusting. Think 35% better but my vote w/ you.
4 Likes
Good reflexion, percentage seems to be a good decision 
3 Likes
Im not really sure what will be best for community.
At the moment I feel like the option 2 is slightly better, as the active community probably holds the majority of staked JUP and are more likely to vote and votes are more likely to be passed if the other 69% bots forget to vote
2 Likes