New temporary quorum

Summary
Establishing a new temporary quorum until we have a better governance proposal

Abstract
Current polls on snapshot show that our current 300k quorum is too low (for example, 1 single whale holds 2M SUSHIPOWAH).
Also, xSUSHI holders now have voting rights and let’s not forget our inflation rate.

Voting disparity between whales and small holders deserves a separate, longer and more detailed discussion since it’s not an easy matter, but we still need to deal with the elephant in the room: what should we do in the short term?

In my opinion, since we can’t solve all governance issues overnight, our best choice right now is to propose a new quorum keeping the old percentage against total SUSHIPOWAH.

Specification
Current total SUSHIPOWAH is 71.92M; you can query the contract anytime to get totalSupply (source: @BoringCrypto)
Old quorum was ~300k, and after doing some napkin maths we found out that when we voted for it total SUSHIPOWAH was ~4.2M.

Let’s do the math:

300k/4.2M = 7%

and since we want to keep the same proportion, our new temporary quorum would be:

7/100*71.92M = ~5M

By the way, these guys did all the estimation (while I only took care of writing this topic):

  • Agree, this is a good idea
  • Hell no, you guys are mad

0 voters

3 Likes

Until we have a new vote about this… this most closely matches the intend of the original vote. The 300k represented around 7%, so setting it again at 7% makes sense to me. This is affectively what the community voted for. We can put this up for a revote later if the community feels it’s not correct.

3 Likes

IMO I better proposal is to NOT allow any vote to be counted more than 30% (or less) of the total votes, no matter how many sushipowah has a wallet and to keep the quorum lower, maybe max 500k (or 1 mil). A high quorum (5 Mil) is similar to Uni, actually is bigger then UNI (UNI has 10 mil but x4 time the tokens => 1mld vs. 250mil), do not incentivate the participation (“my vote will not count anyway”) and still the whales can collaborate easy => almost no voice for the small token holders. Keeping the quorum lower (I dont have a clear opinion on the ideal number, TBC), but limiting the amounts of votes from a wallet to a max. (let say 30%, but can be 25% or else) it may be better to reach the quorum all the time faster and to have considered the opinion of more token holders. The proposal is still a step forward and need to be implemented asap is decided, one way or another

If only 1 wallet = 1 person… :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

Oh yes, no perfect solution here… :man_shrugging:

Well, if you look at our current proposals we can easily reach 5M on important matters; I think the comparison with UNI is inappropriate.

My only concern is that maybe whales won’t vote on proposals not strictly related with their pockets, because maybe they don’t care at all about the governance side of things…so maybe we will reach the quorum on #sushinomics proposals but we won’t reach it on governance questions…who knows.

Yes, its not easy to be 100% sure what is the best solution. We can talk a little about it, but I prefer to implement something asap, even if is not my opinion. Better to do something than just have long long talks. We can make some errors, its ok in this stage. If it will not work efficiently we can adjust, imho. Lets just do more and faster.

1 Like

Totally agree.
This is not perfect, but a 300k quorum is definitely too low.
Better having a temporary solution than no solution at all.

1 Like

Thanks for taking the time to write up our spitballing from last night!

We do have a better governance proposal. See:

A fair governance model that rewards voters

Would it not make sense to decide on quorum after getting a better governance model in place?