--- title: Yip 12 - Indonesian tags: translation, docs, Indonesian --- --- yip: 12 title: Reducing the quorum for accepting proposal status: Implemented author: cp287 (@illlefr4u) discussions-to: https://gov.yearn.finance/t/yip-12-reducing-the-quorum-for-accepting-proposal/578 created: 2020-07-24 implementation: https://etherscan.io/tx/0x64ff868305c1271c51b85a4f69f547f3137bebeae611eff1e0a2d86714469b77# --- ## Simple Summary <!--"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Simply describe the outcome the proposed changes intends to achieve. This should be non-technical and accessible to a casual community member.--> At the moment, it is difficult for the yEarn governance mechanism to achieve a quorum of 33%. For the control system to function, the threshold must be lowered so that at least some decisions can be made. ## Abstract <!--A short (~200 word) description of the proposed change, the abstract should clearly describe the proposed change. This is what *will* be done if the YIP is implemented, not *why* it should be done or *how* it will be done. If the YIP proposes deploying a new contract, write, "we propose to deploy a new contract that will do x".--> It is proposed to reduce the quorum threshold for accepting the proposal to 20%. At the moment, no changes to the on-chain are necessary, since the quorum check is currently being carried out off-chain. Thus, it is enough to simply make a decision by onchain voting. ## Motivation <!--This is the problem statement. This is the *why* of the YIP. It should clearly explain *why* the current state of the protocol is inadequate. It is critical that you explain *why* the change is needed, if the YIP proposes changing how something is calculated, you must address *why* the current calculation is innaccurate or wrong. This is not the place to describe how the YIP will address the issue!--> At the moment, it is difficult for the yEarn governance mechanism to achieve a quorum of 33%. We could observe this even with the important proposal 1, which could not reach the quorum. This is due to both: - general passivity and lack of motivation to participate in governance system; - negative motivation to participate (lock of funds). Thus, yEarn protocol is under the threat of forever remaining as it is, since all proposals may not reach the required quorum (with a high probability, the activity in voting will only decrease over time). There are many different solutions, which I will describe below, and I propose to start discussing them in the topic, but it is critical now to make a simple decision that will allow the protocol to evolve, and the community to make decisions on the development of the protocol. In my opinion, such a decision may be to reduce the quorum threshold to 20%, which I put up for voting. Other ways to solve the quorum problem: - you get rewards for staking only if you vote; - delegation of votes (implementation will take some time); - quorum should be not for ALL tokens, but for only those “escrowed” to be voting; - should have a quorum schedule which after x amount of time with no proposal meeting quorum the threshold goes down 1%-2% for year1, 0.5%-1% for year 2, etc. **FOR**: The threshold for accepting the proposal drops to 20%. **AGAINST**: No change for threshold. ## Metadata | Name | Value | |---------------------|--------------------------------------------| | Proposed by | 0x74630370197b4c4795bFEeF6645ee14F8cf8997D | | Total for votes | 5291919.8701 (66.22%) | | Total against votes | 2699427.0543 (33.77%) | | Quorum | 39.76% ✔ | | Start block | 10522307 | | End block | 10539587 | Source: [yieldfarming.info YFI Governance Information](https://yieldfarming.info/yearn/vote/) ## Copyright Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).