Would a required duration that quorum is met before the closing of a vote be possible? By lowering quorum, you risk a large holder voting at the very last minute, achieving quorum and swinging a vote. Especially if it is in the interest of the losing party to refrain from voting in order for the proposal to not need quorum.
I would propose that quorum must be reached 24-48 hours before a voting period expires for voters to have time to vote on that proposal. Timeframe up for discussion.
Do you mean we close the poll as soon as quorum is reached? Seems like a double edged sword:
Let’s say you are away from the computer and can’t vote for. Hater majority can vote against and win the voting while you are away.
This way instead of “very last minute vote” competition you get “very first minute vote” competition. 
Does it make sense you to?
We can switch to liquid democracy or soemthing else. Unfortunately, it is not coming very soon (coding takes time, dah), hence YIP 12 to make current protocol usable as it is.
is it ok to show vote data in more details ?
YIP 10 is in danger of not reaching Quorum. Only 20% currently, needs 33%.
FOR this proposal at least as a temporary solution to under-participation.
Some more voting stats.
Assuming YIP10 passes. That one’s sitting at just under 20% quorum right now. I think the lock time (3 days) may be pushing people away from voting.
It seems that I’m being proved wrong here. The actual quorum of voted wallets are going down since more people are moving to pool#3 - Wallets are moving in the pool faster than they are voting. I did not foresee that the quorum would shift according to BPT staked. It makes sense now and it really sucks for governance.
That also means once pool 3 rewards run out, the pool will thin out and quorum will be easier to get, no?
That’s a really good point. Only people really interested in governance will be willing to keep their funds there and lock it in order to vote.
Yup. So it feels like this problem will be solved one way or the other.
Good point, unfortunately the rewards will run out only a few hours before this vote ends and about the same time YIP 10 ends.
Yeah so we might just need to re-run the votes for 10, and maybe 12 as well if needed. We can justify the re-run since it’s not like the community rejected these ideas, just that quorum wasn’t met and so the community stance was inconclusive.
But we should be able to get them passed eventually. IMO if the liquidity providers were trying to block these from passing, we would have seen it happen already with a conclusive rejection. Quorum not being met means they just aren’t bothered, and should opportunistically go somewhere else once the rewards run out.
I’m voting against this, seems too much so soon.
It will add too much greed to the system long term.
This is kind of like killing a filibuster, we need a filibuster. I hope this does not pass.
I think its very important this proposal passes.
I outline the dangers of a high quorum here:
I have already voted FOR
Everyone who wants this to pass should be voting both for and against it. The system allows you to do so and counts both towards meeting quorum. The danger here is if we can’t meet Quorum.
Any thoughts whether this will pass, for YIP 12: reducing the quorum for accepting proposals? Seems to be on the right track.
Decision: For wins but we strongly suggest implementation of voting delegation or reducing the quorum threshold before passing this Prop 10. If Prop 10 passes right now, we do not think quorum will ever be reachable.
YIP 10: Transitionary YFI Only Voting - #15 by yfi_whale
Voting with YFI will make it a lot easier to reach the quorum. The last proposal went through with around 44% participation. We should wait and see how participation goes for the next few proposals.
Proposal is accepted . 66.2% for, 33.8% against, 39.8% quorum.
