Burning unused "goods"

With this proposal and its debate, I propose to the DAO community an integration of rules to define the quorum for future votes and try to achieve a balance of power between members and strengthen that decision-making has been representative. But the data make it difficult to elucidate what the quorum would be in its fairest proportion. For this reason, the importance of a quorum is exposed in this debate.

Quorum is a term used to refer to the minimum number of members that must be present at a meeting for it to be valid and make decisions. If a quorum is not regulated in a vote, this can have several consequences:

• Lack of legitimacy: If there is no established quorum, there may not be enough members present to ensure that the decision made reflects the opinion of the majority of the members.

• Lack of transparency: Without an established quorum, it is difficult to know how many people are actually interested in voting and how many are present.

• Lack of Participation: If there is no established quorum, some members may not bother to attend the meeting, which can reduce voting participation.

• Lack of representativeness: If there is no established quorum, some members may be present but not represent all members, which can lead to decisions that do not reflect the opinion of the entire community.

• Lack of credibility: If there is no established quorum, some members may not take the decisions made at the meeting seriously, which can reduce the credibility of the decisions made.

As for the specific quorum, it would depend on the rules set for the vote in question and the community that is voting, but it is important to note that it must have a sufficient number of participants and that they are representative of the community to ensure that the decision made is legitimate and reflects the opinion of the community as a whole.

In a weighted vote, as is the case with GoodDAO, the quorum can be regulated in several ways:

• Participation percentage: A percentage of members who must participate in the vote for it to be valid is established. For example, the quorum can be set at 50% of the voting members.

• Representation by group: A minimum representation of each group of members with the right to vote is established. For example, the quorum can be set to at least 30% of each group of members.

• Weighted voting: The quorum is established based on the number of votes needed to make a decision. For example, the quorum can be set to 60% of the votes cast.

• Combination of the above: The above can be combined to have a tighter or looser quorum.

In conclusion, although establishing a quorum may increase the difficulty of making decisions in a weighted vote, it is important to ensure the legitimacy and transparency of the process.

If an adequate quorum is established and good participation is promoted and we can be sure that the decision made will be the best one for the project. In addition, by considering the opinions and weighted votes of all members, we can be sure that the decision made will be representative of the community and will contribute to the success of the project.

But we have a specific situation in which there are millions of “goods” distributed, but only a maximum of 9 million have been used to approve GIPs (improvement proposals), which means that a very high percentage of goods have never been used. Furthermore, only 250 wallets vote out of the 115,870 that own them. With these data, it is concluded that it is impossible to create a democratic quorum and, therefore, it will be difficult to defend any decision made in the DAO.

Conclution; “burning unused goods” to increase interest in participation and thus establish a defensible, coherent and at the same time democratic quorum can be effective. This may include an implementation of the weighted voting system, where each member who increases their participation in the platform, will be awarded a reward in GOOD by virtue of the “hearts” received.


Interesante tu propuesta Oliver, esperar que opinan los miembros de la comunidad y sea tomada en cuenta para una discusiĂłn en el foro

1 Like

Primero que todo, excelente explicación para los que no entienden que es el quorum y como aplicarlo. Ya respecto a la propuesta, me gustaría se someta a votación el cambio del quorum actual a uno mas diciente tanto de la participación como de la voz de la comunidad. Tambien someter a votacion el “quemar los bienes en desuso” para ayudar a tener un numero mas real de socios activos, reducir los tokens disponibles (ayuda a dar valor) y una reparticion motivadora a los realmente activo. Me gusta.

1 Like

Thank you Oliver for your proposal. I agree that the Quorum is perhaps somewhat low and I support the idea of ​​raising it to achieve greater legitimacy of the votes, however I believe that there is something that must be taken and that is that we could run the risk that the proposals will not return to Reaching a quorum and decision-making by the GoodDao stagnates despite the fact that all the participants supported or rejected an opinion, nothing would be defined.
Because, as you say, very few people are participating, wanting to jump from a quorum of 3% for chain voting to 30-50% I think for now it could be something strong.

Regarding the rest of the proposal about burning the inactive GOOD tokens, I do not agree, because it would take away voting power from people who perhaps support GoodDollar or simply do not vote because they do not decide the entire proposal.
If there is a wallet that has 9 million Goods and only 18 million vote, that wallet would decide everything and the 250 people who add another 9 million would have practically no decision.

I would more support an idea of ​​reducing the rewards in GOOD for supporters by a % (not more than 10%) and distributing it among the wallets that vote equally

All this based on my personal opinion

Thanks Andés, you mention the importance of increasing the quorum to increase the legitimacy of the votes, but you also point out the concern that this could stall decision-making in the GoodDao. That is part of democracy where sometimes unwanted proposals are approved even by myself. With the participation the quorum in each GIP will be known.

The proposal to burn inactive GOOD tokens will strip INACTIVE voters (who have not exercised their right to vote, for example in all the GIPs presented) of their voting power for democratic reasons, that is, by not exercising the vote it makes it difficult to define the quorum that legitimizes the vote and all this causing not being able to defend the decisions due to lack of representation.

It is not a question of preventing any other wallet from entering at some point, since we must always leave the front door open for more DAOs that want to participate.

The idea of ​​reducing the rewards in GOOD for the followers and distributing them among the wallets that vote equally is of great value for those who already have high voting powers, therefore I would propose it when the voting power reaches concrete figures of good elevated.

It is important in a weighted system that, in order to reach agreements, the participation percentages must have a minimum and if that percentage is 0.2%, as is the case with us, I doubt very much that there is representation. By burning good that percentage will increase considerably and therefore be able to calculate a quorum. If the last participation was 250 wallets and 9M Good presented at least we could reach a convincing quorum.

You know, the value of the good is the value of not losing them. If you love them you also love the project. If the economic value is 0 and nobody cares about losing them, democracy wins.


Distributed governance is hard.
I believe we need to first focus on more participation and delegation.
I dont think we should worry about the numbers at the moment.
I hope that once we have more funds controlled by the community it will spark more interest in governance and then the community can start re-thinking governance.


Thank you for your participation in the discussion!

I am concerned that distributed governance is not being given enough importance at the present time. The more participation and delegation we have, the stronger our community will be, but I think it’s important to start thinking about how to ensure a democratic and equitable system now.

It is true that distributed governance can be difficult, but that does not mean that we should not start working on it. We can’t wait for more community controlled funds to start thinking about how decisions will be made. We must ensure that decision-making processes are democratic from the start, to ensure that the community has a real role in running the project.

A democratic and equitable system is essential to the long-term success of any project, and I hope that we can work together to ensure that this becomes a reality.


After exposing the idea and the opinion of the most active people in the community, what was the conclusion? What happens after this post?