while I have a gut feeling that increasing the dynamic quorum may potentially cause more harm than good and could lead to increased divisiveness within the community, i also recognize the importance of exploring the effects of this proposal. assessing its impact could ultimately be beneficial for the DAO as a whole, and it might help us better understand how to refine our governance processes.

Poll failed to meet vote threshold.

FOR - 16 VOTES

AGAINST - 21 VOTES

profwerder | "Well first of all, it’s not quorum so let’s stop using that word. It’s threshold or dynamic yes. And also just NO. This is clearly part of a larger strategy to slow spending which would stall proliferation. No need to adjust the threshold at this time."

Benbodhi | "I think it's already at a pretty good spot for contentious props for now."

EltonPenguin | "Seems important"

Reasons given in my newsletter: https://paragraph.xyz/@thebower/active-governance-noun-582-6

Increasing quorum will reduce the number of weird, innovative things that Nouns funds - not everything good is a "hell yes" from the whole DAO (shoutout to Drew for his thoughtful voting reason that shaped our thinking).

I prepared this document to help make a decision: https://twitter.com/JoelCares_/status/1643017030042370049

I agree with Noun 40 in that I'm mostly interested in Dynamic Quorum as a security measure, but understand that ultimately these values are another tool to affect proposal outcomes.

We recently implemented a vote threshold in Nouncil and have increasingly voted to abstain in Nouns DAO when our internal threshold is not met. It's a bit disheartening to have the majority vote FOR and then process an abstain because our vote didn't meet threshold, both for the proposers and the voters. There is a social consequence to the DAO in modifying these values and I would advocate for experimenting with smaller changes.

At first I thought I would vote for this--dynamic quorum is already in place, and why not bump it up a bit to ensure higher conviction on proposals? But after catching up on all the background and thinking a bit more, I am against.

I actually think I am against any dynamic quorum. I do not think it is offering meaningful risk protection: proposals are watched pretty closely and I think there is near 0 risk someone drains the treasury due to low voter turn out.

Functionally, dynamic quorum serves to privilege "against" votes. Up to the dynamic quorum max, every vote against basically counts as two votes "for." To me this seems unfair and is uncommon to all IRL dominant functioning forms of democracy that I am aware of.

So, in addition to being against this prop, I think I would be in favor of setting the quorum max = quorum min to address that these odd incentives affect the DAO much more than the hypothetical risk we are trying to guard against.

Dynamic quorum was established to address governance attacks, not to raise the "hell yes" threshold. Its limited use indicates effectiveness, and modifying a functional governance system by raising the maximum quorum limits our risk/reward profile, potentially excluding rewarding projects like Explorer Grants that have benefited Nouns.

if you read all the dialogue surrounding WHY we implemented dynamic quorum (compiled here: https://twitter.com/noun40__/status/1644116800366321665), it really wasn't to raise the "hell yes" threshold. it was to make governance attacks that leverage voter apathy more expensive.

so I don't quite agree with the rationale here that we should raise it since we didn't get to "use" it much.

like we don't think veto isn't being useful right now (and we need to make it be used more for that reason). put differently, the best outcome for a security feature is that it doesn't get used. so dynamic quorum is serving its intended purpose right now imo.

raising the maximum quorum % also makes it easier for a malicious minority to troll (e.g. if a 10% voting block votes NO on everything, 2x that number (20%) needs to show up to vote YES to pass something).

Don't think this is necessary/mostly agree with Drew's takes on "Hell yes" voting. More shots at a possibly lower hit rate is probably better for the DAO's current state than the inverse (which this prop is aiming to achieve).

The Hell Yes ideology makes sense for individuals, for whom time is a scarce resource that moves one-dimensionally. Time is not right now a scarce resource for the DAO, because we have the advantage of accessing the concurrent time of everyone who is currently working on/building for Nouns (so time moves two-dimensionally for NounsDAO). I hope that makes sense lol

Generally in favor of the principle of making contentious votes require greater overall participation from the whole community, and I think the mirror post does a good job explaining such. The open question I have is why not make something more gradient, as outlined in mirror post? I don't think it's necessary for us to have to vote for each new threshold ad hoc - hopefully we can have a (potentially quadratic) algorithm to accomplish that dynamically. I'd also throw in the idea that similar to a gradient for required consensus, we adopt a gradient for proposed funding. Again, I am for this proposal, but just wanted to offer some things to think about.

This is an unnecessary change.

First-time voter here, and I'm starting off my time by expressing opposition to the idea of "hell yes" voting.

While I understand the importance of creating a quorum function that represents the DAO's interests as a whole, I believe that the DAO's best interests lie in being open to anyone interested in building. A DAO that becomes too focused on "hell yes" votes is a DAO that receives less attention and energy.

Some of the best innovations have been born out of skepticism and doubt.

Think 20% is even low

Reasoning: https://twitter.com/krel404/status/1643186267239198720?s=20

Increasing maximum quorum should increase the percentage of successful proposals that are "hell yes" initiatives. Why fund marginal controversial proposals when there are plenty of great ones passing nearly unanimously?

we spent a lot of time building and testing dynamic quorum, but it hasn't impacted any proposals. Incrementally increasing the maximum quorum allows it to work as intended imo.

This slows DAO spend, building, and proliferation, to the benefit of the book value crowd that wants to rage quit.