# \[BIP-435\] Change to Yes based Quorum of 1 Million Yes votes **URL:** \ **Category:** General Proposal\ **Created:** [May 19, 2023, 3:42pm UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-435-change-to-yes-based-quorum-of-1-million-yes-votes/4798 "2023-05-19T15:42:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Tritium](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/tritium/32/2011_2.png) [@Tritium](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/Tritium)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2023, 3:42pm UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-435-change-to-yes-based-quorum-of-1-million-yes-votes/4798/1 "2023-05-19T15:42:17Z")
# Background Following on from [[BIP-163] Restructure Governance Process - Disband Governance Council](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-163-restructure-governance-process-disband-governance-council/4244), which laid out a clear process for all stages of governance. This RFC is based on changes made by [BIP-300](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-300-change-snapshot-to-weighted-voting/4771/12) and the AIP resulting from this AURA [Temperature Check](https://forum.aura.finance/t/temperature-check-implement-weighted-voting-for-aura/469) changed the way that voting works such that 100% of AURA’s vlAURA is always registered as either (yes, no or abstian). With [3+ million vlAURA](https://www.defiwars.xyz/wars/balancer) locked, this means that the current quorum of 2 million votes will never fail to be met. Quroum has been rendered meaningless. These changes are being made to restore the Quorum while making minimal changes to the intended voting dynamic. # Yes Based Quorum This BIP proposes quorum is moved from counting total votes, to requiring a minimum number of Yes votes as well as a majority of Yes votes for governance to pass. As the current quorum is 2 million votes, a new Quorum of 1 million Yes(affirmiative) votes should have the same intended effect, without large wrapper abstaination resulting in the passage BIPs that do not have a quorum of supporting interest. # Specification Going forward the votes counted towards Quorum will be determined by adding the total number of affirmitive votes. The quorum will changed from 2 million votes in any direction, to 1 million Yes votes. ---
**Author:** ![Matt\_Alfalfa\_or\_Span](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/matt_alfalfa_or_span/32/2502_2.png) [@Matt\_Alfalfa\_or\_Span](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/Matt_Alfalfa_or_Span)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2023, 4:52pm UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-435-change-to-yes-based-quorum-of-1-million-yes-votes/4798/3 "2023-05-19T16:52:32Z")
Agree with @franklin’s comment. Abstentions traditionally count when it comes to determining if a quorum has been satisfied. > [@Tritium](#): > > Going forward, all Snapshots shall be posted as Weighted Voting with Options [“Yes, let’s do it”, “No, this is not the way”, and “Abstain” being available. RE: the above, in addition to the “Abstain” option (assuming it has meaning), we may want to change the voting options a bit to something like, (1) “Yes, let’s do it” and “No, this is not the way,” or (2) option voting for different results, similar to what we saw with [BIP-161 (Close the Year 2 Funding Gap](https://snapshot.org/#/balancer.eth/proposal/0x12bce443c7bd212b3fdd18468433fc959740610888300d5a30eb35de94662790) - Options A, B, and C along with “More discussion is needed”) and [BIP-57b](https://snapshot.org/#/balancer.eth/proposal/0x71a0e9d38dae99b9169a68a20c5b12c6db23ade541abb7885119e08576eb208d) (2% v.5% Gauge Framework cap options). If a change like this is made, the second bullet of the structure would have to also be adjusted accordingly. ---
**Author:** ![Tritium](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/tritium/32/2011_2.png) [@Tritium](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/Tritium)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2023, 5:09pm UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-435-change-to-yes-based-quorum-of-1-million-yes-votes/4798/4 "2023-05-19T17:09:21Z")
Let’s say that I am a vlAURA voter, and I want to not vote for something. If I don’t vote on the Aura snapshot, then my votes are just lumped in with everyone else. If I explicitly wish to note vote for for a matter, I can indicate that by choosing abstain. Then those votes will not be counted towards Quorum. Make sense? Are you looking to add 4 options? I don’t think this needs to be so complicated, but if there are voters who also wish to abstain and help Quorum, but not vote in a direction we can deal with it. The foundation members said it was fine and they can just stay out of the things they shouldn’t take a position on. The 3 current options are dictated by [[BIP-163] Restructure Governance Process - Disband Governance Council](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-163-restructure-governance-process-disband-governance-council/4244) ---
**Author:** ![Matt\_Alfalfa\_or\_Span](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/matt_alfalfa_or_span/32/2502_2.png) [@Matt\_Alfalfa\_or\_Span](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/Matt_Alfalfa_or_Span)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2023, 6:04pm UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-435-change-to-yes-based-quorum-of-1-million-yes-votes/4798/6 "2023-05-19T18:04:22Z")
Putting aside the abstention issue for the moment, for the sake of clarity and consistency between this BIP and BIP-163, I would just incorporate the current 3 options referenced in BIP-163 [+ abstain if it goes that way] into the “Structure of Snapshots” part of this post, so the first bullet would read: - Going forward, all Snapshot votes shall be posted as Weighted Voting with Options consistent with BIP-163 [+ abstain if this is modified] And just so we are clear, my use of brackets is to indicate that the text between the brackets isn’t included in the current proposed language, unless this BIP winds up being changed to incorporate abstentions for quorum purposes in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Tritium](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/tritium/32/2011_2.png) [@Tritium](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/Tritium)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2023, 9:14pm UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-435-change-to-yes-based-quorum-of-1-million-yes-votes/4798/7 "2023-05-19T21:14:38Z")
Abstain means that you do not want your share of the vote to be used to count towards quorum nor that you want to vote in any direction. This makes it possible to indicate as such. > [@Matt\_Alfalfa\_or\_Span](#): > > - Going forward, all Snapshot votes shall be posted as Weighted Voting with Options consistent with BIP-163 [+ abstain if this is modified] BIP-163 already has Abstain in it. It was just not clear how Abstain was handled, and precident so far has been to count it towards the quorum. This BIP changes that. Am I missing something? If the Aura Delegate(s) wants the ability to abstain but push quorum we can figure that out by adding a 4th option. ```auto Yes, let's do it. No, this is not the way. Abstain - with quorum support Abstain - without quorum support ``` It just seems quite complex. We want to make governance accessible and understandable and transparent. ---
**Author:** ![Matt\_Alfalfa\_or\_Span](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/matt_alfalfa_or_span/32/2502_2.png) [@Matt\_Alfalfa\_or\_Span](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/Matt_Alfalfa_or_Span)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2023, 9:22pm UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-435-change-to-yes-based-quorum-of-1-million-yes-votes/4798/8 "2023-05-19T21:22:55Z")
> [@Tritium](#): > > BIP-163 already has Abstain in it. It was just not clear how Abstain was handled, and precident so far has been to count it towards the quorum. This BIP changes that. Am I missing something? Apologies - I didn’t reread the whole thing today. It’s a great proposal but is a lot of text. 😅 I still recommend incorporating BIP-163 by reference for the sake of consistency. If modifications are needed then they can be made by doing something like," The Options are set forth in BIP-163, except ‘xzy…’" > [@Tritium](#): > > It just seems quite complex. We want to make governance accessible and understandable and transparent. I agree. That’s why it seems odd to me to have abstain as an option without it counting towards quorum. That in and of itself is already confusing to me. ---
**Author:** ![Tritium](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/tritium/32/2011_2.png) [@Tritium](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/Tritium)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2023, 9:26pm UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-435-change-to-yes-based-quorum-of-1-million-yes-votes/4798/9 "2023-05-19T21:26:02Z")
You’re 100% correct. I added a reference to BIP-163 in the first sentence. I thought it was already there 😅 ---
**Author:** ![Matt\_Alfalfa\_or\_Span](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/matt_alfalfa_or_span/32/2502_2.png) [@Matt\_Alfalfa\_or\_Span](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/Matt_Alfalfa_or_Span)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2023, 9:33pm UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-435-change-to-yes-based-quorum-of-1-million-yes-votes/4798/10 "2023-05-19T21:33:51Z")
> [@Tritium](#): > > Going forward, all Snapshots shall be posted as Weighted Voting with Options [“Yes, let’s do it”, “No, this is not the way”, and “Abstain” being available. Would incorporate it here too. Otherwise, the question of whether there is flexibility to vote with other options besides yes, no, abstain, becomes confusing. Per BIP-163: > [@\[BIP-163\] Restructure Governance Process - Disband Governance Council](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-163-restructure-governance-process-disband-governance-council/4244/1): > > Barring clear community consensus otherwise the vote Should be of Type “Basic Voting” and the choices should be one of [**Yes, let’s do it** - **No, This is not the way** - **Abstain**]. ---
**Author:** ![Tritium](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/tritium/32/2011_2.png) [@Tritium](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/Tritium)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2023, 12:32am UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-435-change-to-yes-based-quorum-of-1-million-yes-votes/4798/12 "2023-05-20T00:32:11Z")
Ok. We can drop this for now. ---
**Author:** ![Tritium](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/tritium/32/2011_2.png) [@Tritium](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/Tritium)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2023, 10:20pm UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-435-change-to-yes-based-quorum-of-1-million-yes-votes/4798/14 "2023-07-31T22:20:56Z")
Sounds good. What about just changing the quorum requirement to be: “A vote that passes with less than 750,000 Yes votes will not be considered to have reached quorum” ---
**Author:** ![Tritium](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/tritium/32/2011_2.png) [@Tritium](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/Tritium)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2023, 10:02am UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-435-change-to-yes-based-quorum-of-1-million-yes-votes/4798/16 "2023-08-01T10:02:27Z")
Yes, just a little bit/baby steps 🙂 We could do 500=600k yes to meet the quorum as well 🙂 We just saw that if Solarcurve actually votes with his Aura, he can get more than half way there on his own. In the end voters have to be less lazy, and seem to show up when it really matters, and 750k requires less than 10% of the total veBAL electorate (almost all of whom vote from time to time for emissions) to pass. At best we can get our voters more involved, and move back to 1 million yes votes. Was thinking about adding to this BIP or another BIP, some guidance (social) requiring DAOs and wrappers to actively participate in governance most of the time or delegate to someone who does. This is probably the easiest group to get engaged. ---
**Author:** ![solarcurve](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/solarcurve/32/1487_2.png) [@solarcurve](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/solarcurve)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2023, 4:37pm UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-435-change-to-yes-based-quorum-of-1-million-yes-votes/4798/18 "2023-08-02T16:37:33Z")
strongly against a vote cap unless we change the system for gauge voting. i.e. optimistic approval or batching them together. if we cap proposals per week at 5 we’ll run into serious problems with gauges being approved. ---
**Author:** ![0xDanko](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/0xdanko/32/1376_2.png) [@0xDanko](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/0xDanko)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2023, 6:59pm UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-435-change-to-yes-based-quorum-of-1-million-yes-votes/4798/19 "2023-08-02T18:59:37Z")
Disagree with capping as well, and hardly enforceable. Maybe a little clean-up and better organization on Discourse to remove the gauge voting from the landing page would help voters and delegates access the relevant BIPs? I’m afraid that leaving Aura’s abstentions out of the [[AIP-27]](https://forum.aura.finance/t/aip-27-implement-weighted-voting-for-aura/469) weighting might amplify a minority (or even a single voter). So I would support ignoring Abstention votes for quorum calculations. That being said, as of today, four Maxis delegates together have ~1mio veBAL, so 750k is not good. In case Aura abstains, it will push too much decision-making power towards an entity with great influence in the community already. From that POV, 1,5mio looks better (just because I’m afraid we can’t reach 2mio). Ofc this has nothing to do with competence, but with the risks involved in perceived centralization in governance. ---
**Author:** ![Tritium](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/tritium/32/2011_2.png) [@Tritium](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/Tritium)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2023, 1:47am UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-435-change-to-yes-based-quorum-of-1-million-yes-votes/4798/20 "2023-08-03T01:47:16Z")
Ok so how about this: 1: The maxis will remain active and vote on things that are important to them. 2: The quorum will remain as it is but redefined as 1 million yes votes. 3: Votes in which the delegates who contribute to balancer have to abstain for technical reasons will count their abstain votes towards the yes quorum. We could even move to 1.25 million yes votes under those conditions it seems. It would also be nice to see a bit of a marketing push from Aura to try to engage large holders to move their delegate to some other delegates and/or be a little more active voting directly on important/contentious governance matters. ---
**Author:** ![Tritium](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/tritium/32/2011_2.png) [@Tritium](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/Tritium)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2023, 6:09pm UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-435-change-to-yes-based-quorum-of-1-million-yes-votes/4798/23 "2023-08-03T18:09:55Z")
Ok so: > [@Tritium](#): > > 1: The maxis will remain active and vote on things that are important to them. > > 2: The quorum will remain as it is but redefined as 1.5 million yes votes. > > 3: Votes in which the delegates who contribute to balancer have to abstain for technical reasons will count their abstain votes towards the yes quorum. Do we agree? Does someone want to put a BIP together or should I? ---
**Author:** ![solarcurve](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/solarcurve/32/1487_2.png) [@solarcurve](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/solarcurve)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2023, 6:12pm UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-435-change-to-yes-based-quorum-of-1-million-yes-votes/4798/24 "2023-08-03T18:12:33Z")
it’s gonna take a big effort to reach 1.5M votes on everything. but I guess that’s kinda the intention here, to start making us work for every proposal. hope everyone with a delegation will remain active. the shareholders are unlocking most of their veBAL so maxi delegation will only decrease from here ---
**Author:** ![Tritium](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/tritium/32/2011_2.png) [@Tritium](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/Tritium)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2023, 6:32pm UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-435-change-to-yes-based-quorum-of-1-million-yes-votes/4798/25 "2023-08-03T18:32:12Z")
I tend to agree and like 1 m or 1.25m better. We can always change again later, but let’s find some consensus and do something 🙂 I’ll become an AURA delegate, maybe that helps balance out the shareholder unwinding. ---
**Author:** ![solarcurve](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/solarcurve/32/1487_2.png) [@solarcurve](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/solarcurve)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2023, 6:43pm UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-435-change-to-yes-based-quorum-of-1-million-yes-votes/4798/26 "2023-08-03T18:43:35Z")
I’d just do 1M quorum. if aura delegate wants to stop something makes no difference if quorum is 1M or 1.5M. only reason to do 1.5M is to increase the amount of work the people tryin to keep this place going have to do ---
**Author:** ![Tritium](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/tritium/32/2011_2.png) [@Tritium](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/Tritium)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2023, 3:37pm UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-435-change-to-yes-based-quorum-of-1-million-yes-votes/4798/28 "2023-08-05T15:37:12Z")
Ok so i thought about it more. In the end, the goal here was first and foremost to fix our broken quorum, not change it. I therefore suggest we do a simple BIP to change the quorum to at least 1 million YES votes to pass, simply restoring things to the way they were. We can discuss a quorum increase later in a separate BIP. I welcome anyone else who has participated in this conversation to propose a BIP with the parameters/style you see fit, but if no one does, I’ll post what I suggested above on Tuesday for action next week 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Xeonus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/xeonus/32/3621_2.png) [@Xeonus](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/Xeonus)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2023, 7:46pm UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-435-change-to-yes-based-quorum-of-1-million-yes-votes/4798/30 "2023-09-20T19:46:09Z")
[https://snapshot.org/#/balancer.eth/proposal/0x58c2895b06d6b3b3fc636f5e56a2ab55b54d30c56158b6e603e38b53aab27354](https://snapshot.org/#/balancer.eth/proposal/0x58c2895b06d6b3b3fc636f5e56a2ab55b54d30c56158b6e603e38b53aab27354)