Lower governance quorum to 8%

Hi. Why is the voting going for 7 days only (the minimum possible)?
Isn’t it obvious that if we got only 56k gzils last time in 30 days, there is no way we get 112k gzils in just 7 days?

Moonlet as well. but through moonlet app.

Zilsteam has more wallet options.

Thank you, I found it. I had no idea it was in there but I’m surprised how easy it was to vote now.

1 Like

Currently if you take into account of the current gZil holders based on wallet address. It is very well distributed. With top wallet holding at most 1.78% of gZil (ignoring Zilswap)

Based on your proposal , if SSNs are involved in governance voting on behalf of delegators, there’s will be a consolidation of executive rights to a few. And the following needs to be addressed.

A) Small pool of SSN
B) How to ensure validators conduct fair poll
C) What happens to delegators who don’t participate
D) Would they only vote for proposals that benefit them

If we take Etherum as an example:

Lido currently holds 42% of all staked ETH — 80% concentrated with 4 providers.

If applying the same logic behind it, the big whales will likely be controlling the governance. Not really a good way for decentralization.

Imo. There’s no simple solution for this. If this proposal is bad, vote against it.
This is a way to show democracy.

And there will never be a proposal without resistance.

I personally see this as a way to encourage more changes in the future. By lowering quorum and improving efficiency. If more users are participating (more than 20% quorum) , it still doesn’t alter the legitimacy as it’s only fair that people who bother to turn out to vote decides the outcome. Similarly to a country’s election. I feel it’s not right that People complain but they choose not to turn up for voting

Just to say thank you everyone for your comments and suggestions.
I thought it would useful to provide some replies here.

Remember, voting for this proposal is now open (ends on Feb 3rd) so
whichever way you vote, please do vote!

The first thing I’d say is that if you don’t like the proposal as
worded, you are always free to propose something else - anyone can
contribute, both here and in snapshot.

To address some of the comments in a mostly random order (sorry!):

  • We want to reduce the quorum so that we can have effective
    governance, and greater participation. gZIL won’t be useful if
    no-one can get a proposal through governance, and people will stop
    voting if they don’t think a proposal has a good chance of meeting
    quorum. Reducing the quorum is an easy thing to do that we can do now,
    that makes gZIL more effective and more relevant.

  • I agree with will_speaks - gZIL delegation is a good idea and
    something I’d like us to implement in the future (though I’m less
    sure about slashing); however, it will require internal discussion,
    changes to snapshot, more discussion here, and at least one more
    governance vote (which will be easier if this proposal
    passes). Until then, we thought it was worth continuing in the
    interests of making gZIL more useful.

  • It is indeed awkward to pass the previous vote along with this one;
    however, we’ve had a vote on 4% SSN commission and we didn’t think
    there was much point in making everyone vote on it again after such
    a short time. Appreciate that some people feel strongly about this;
    if you think this is important enough that you’d like to change it,
    one way to do so is to make a proposal here to set the minimum SSN
    commission to 0% - and if it passes, it will have the effect of
    nullifying the 4% vote.

  • We’re voting for 7d in an attempt to make a decision reasonably
    quickly and get on with submitting proposals to governance.


Hi all - just to say we’re 2d away from the close of voting, so please vote if you still haven’t!

Currently we’re at 75% for/ 25% against, with 47*0.2 = 9.4% of gZIL voted.

Hi Richard, One of my recent posts on the proposal for Gzil DAO was automatically hidden, could you please assist in unhiding it? Secondly, will the proposal be put to a formal vote?

hi - I’m really sorry for the delay! Unhidden (it had been marked as spam for some reason); please yell / DM if I need to do more & thank you for contributing!

Hi Dr Watts.

Would like to further enhance this proposal.

What I see at the moment is that with the reduction of quorum, it would bring about a need to revisit quorum levels according to future participation rate

I propose that quorum levels be scaled as such;

5%-10% increase in quorum requirements upon every quorum reached regardless of results of vote with a cap of X%
-5%-10% decrease if quorum participation not reached with a reserved base level requirement of Y%

This will ensure that voting will always be in relevance to the activeness of the community.

Hi @xenderz

Thank you for your suggestion! We’ve had quite a few internal discussions on very similar lines; let’s see how delegation goes, but something like this sounds very sensible … thank you!