[Signal Proposal] DAO Governance Evolution - Three-Tier Quorum Framework

Author: Nestor (5583) Vote Duration: 17 days Quorum Requirement: 7.2M GHST (~27%)

[Signal Proposal] DAO Governance Evolution - Three-Tier Quorum Framework

Summary: Replacing a single over-calibrated threshold with a stake-proportionate tier system, considering current organic quorum and including community input via three polls to decide key parameters.

The Impasse - One Threshold Fits None : AavegotchiDAO currently applies a single quorum threshold of 7,200,000 VP to every proposal regardless of stakes, scope, or time-sensitivity. The data shows this is broken in both directions. Recent evidence: Important Treasury proposals which ran for a month failed. Despite representing the considered will of the active community the proposals closed below quorum with approximately two-thirds of necessary VP. These proposals (among others) did not fail for lack of support. They failed because the quorum threshold is structurally misaligned with organic participation levels. The 7.2M bar requires roughly 27% of all eligible VP to participate: this is a figure the active community cannot sustain without exceptional effort on every single proposal. The mandate of AGIP-145 is clear: it established the 7.2M threshold particularly under the condition that the figure "will need to be monitored and could be adjusted via a new proposal, especially if it becomes inadequate after migration of most ecosystem assets and functions to Base network." That migration is complete. The number is evidently inadequate. The revision is due.

Proposed solution - A Quorum Framework with three tiers: Replace the single universal threshold with three tiers, each calibrated to the stakes of the proposal type. Thresholds follow a clean 2× progression: each tier is 50% of the tier above it. The issues listed in the overview below are examplary and not exhaustive.

• **Galaxy Tier >>> 20 % ** Constitutional amendments, Director elections, Treasury allocations above the threshold defined in Poll B, governance framework changes.
• **Medium Tier >>> 10% ** Protocol parameter changes, strategic partnerships, multi-month operational mandates (e.g. Officers), Significant grants (Poll B)
• **Smol Tier >>> 5% ** Community events, minor parameter adjustments, short-term incentive programmes like Hackathons, Small grants (Poll B); (Poll C gauges the intent to secure the tiers additionally by adjusting Vote Differentials)

Tier assignment: The proposal author self-classifies, using both the scope criteria above and the dollar-amount ranges decided in Poll B below. Where the tier is not clear from established criteria, the classification is discussed and confirmed during the Signal Proposal phase before the Core Proposal is posted.

Vote Differential for the Smol and Medium tiers is decided by the community in Poll C: the Galaxy tier retains the existing COCOON baselines (10% / 15% / 20% by option count) which already provide strong abuse protection on their own.

Polls: Launching with the Signal Proposal, running for 10 days and closing together, leaving one week of the SigProp window for additional polls, if the poll-results should require further calibration. Please visit the seperate Snapshat-Polls for details, here the overview:

Poll A >> Quorum methodology: fixed quorum or continuously calculated? (as it has been before AGIP-145)

Poll B >> Funding range per tier: definition of the Medium tier's range fixes the Smol-tier ceiling, and the Galaxy-tier floor.

Poll C >> Vote Differential calibration for Medium and Smol tiers: prevention of abuse through adjusting of Vote Differentials

Deferred to a future Phase 2 of Governance Evolution :

• Trigger definition - when and how quorum thresholds are reviewed, if Poll A returns "Fixed."
• Voting period durations per tier - to be determined after community reaction to the tier structure.
• Wallet-count layer - a minimum-distinct-wallets requirement per tier, displayed alongside the VP-weighted result for transparency (collapsed bicameral design).

Vote: Do you support replacing the current single-threshold quorum system with a three-tier quorum framework (Galaxy / Medium / Smol) for AavegotchiDAO governance, with implementation parameters to be finalised in AGIP-160 based on the results of the concurrent community polls?

• ✓ YES >>> I support tiered quorum governance
• ✗ NO >>> I prefer the current single-threshold system
• ○ ABSTAIN >>> I acknowledge the vote but take no position