Proposal to Change Governance Parameters

This is a proposal to amend the governance parameters.

Below are the current parameters

Standard Proposal Parameters

  • proposal threshold: 1,000,000
  • voting delay (blocks): 13140 - about 1.8 days
  • voting period (blocks): 40320 - about 5.6 days
  • proposal timelock delay (seconds): 172800 - 2 days
  • quorum threshold: 10,000,000

Emergency Proposal Parameters

  • emergency voting period (blocks): 6570 - about 0.9 days
  • emergency voting timelockDelay (seconds): 43200 - 12 hours
  • emergency quorum threshold: 50,000,000

Optimistic Proposal Parameters

  • optimistic voting delay (blocks): 25600 - about 3.5 days
  • voting period (blocks): 40320 - about 5.6 days
  • optimistic negative quorum threshold: 2,000,000

Docs Governance Info

Proposed change

The current parameters are not productive due to the low circulating supply of IPT. By my tally, there is approximately 18 million IPT in the wild, and the more realistic voting supply is likely closer to 9 million. However, with the GFX Labs Delegation Program coming into effect in the coming weeks, we can likely expect the voting supply to increase between 2-5m.

At this time, I believe the key parameters to update are the following:

Standard Proposal Parameters

  • proposal threshold: 200,000
  • quorum threshold: 2,000,000

Optimistic Proposal Parameters

  • optimistic negative quorum threshold: 500,000

By decreasing the proposal threshold, approximately 25 addresses would have proposal power, and that number will likely increase to 35 after the Delegation Program takes effect. Decreasing the quorum from one million to five hundred thousand should be a sufficient improvement.

If we find that too many proposals are being made, we can increase the proposal threshold, or if we find the quorum threshold is too easily achieved, we can increase it.


Big fan of this conceptually, but I think it would be more effective to make the quorum thresholds percentages of the IPT float at the time the proposal is created. Otherwise, as more IPT enters the market these thresholds will constantly have to be voted on.

While I agree with the concept, the execution is complex because we’d need to develop an onchain oracle. As a part of that oracle, we’d need to check the balance or several addresses that could change at any time. To effectively manage the oracle would require an onchain proposal. At that point, we might as well update the parameters manually.

I don’t want to rule it out if someone has a good idea, but my current thought is that the risk/reward wouldn’t be worth it.