Proposal: NIP-1 Dynamic Quroum

NounsDAO NounsDAO Proposals
1

[This replaces the previous post on statically increasing Quroum requirements; it is intended to spark discussion on optimal parametrization of the consensus curve before going on chain]

NIP-1: Dynamic Vote Quorum

Simple Summary

A dynamic quorum that adjusts as a function of for/against votes, allowing uncontested proposals to pass at a minimum defined quorum, while requiring higher assurance on contested proposals.

Abstract

This NIP proposes an update to the NounsDAOLogicV1 contract that replaces the static proposal.quorumVotes with a dynamic quorum that adjusts based on the amount of opposition.

TODO: Decide on curve (linear, exponential, etc.)

Sample Quorum Calculation:

x = for_votes / (for_votes + against_votes)
if (x <= 0.5) {
    return failed
}

min_quorum_bps = 1000
max_quorum_bps = 5000
quorum_bps = ((max_quorum_bps - min_quorum_bps) * (1 - x)) + min_quorum_bps
quorum = (quorum_bps * total_supply) / 10000

return for_votes >= quorum

Motivation

This is a step towards decentralization, offering improved security and partial mitigation of risks associated with vote accumulation by individual members, while keeping friction low for routine governance tasks.

A dynamic quorum integrates some aspects of optimistic governance (low friction on uncontroversial or ‘procedural’ proposals) by allowing uncontested proposals to pass at the current 10% quorum, while requiring higher assurance on contested proposals as a function of turnout/dissent.

//

[Note: min_quorum_bps + max_quorum_bps <= 10000]

using above function gives the following quorum minimums at given consensus thresholds-
(Consensus, Quorum) : (100%, 10%), (75%, 20%), (50%, 30%)

(consensus = for votes / (for + against votes)

2 Likes
2

thanks for sharing this. nounders had a preliminary discussion about it this morning, and our main feedback is that we think all governance protocol changes should undergo a formal audit before being executed. so 100% we should explore, model, and debate the cryptoeconomic consequences of this kind of change, and intuitively it is an interesting and probably good idea, but before thinking about putting it on-chain it will require a substantial amount of diligence. just want to make clear to everyone that even though it might look the same, this is not the same flavor of proposal as funding a coloring book etc. due to the long tail catastrophic risks of getting it wrong. solimander also mentioned that it might be a good first use-case for the proposal diligence committee

3 Likes
3

thx 4156- reiterating from discord that I agree wholeheartedly with all of this and that I hope we can work out an efficient, conscientious paradigm for updating contracts.

1 Like