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.