CIP 2 Goverance Proposal: quorum, notification period, majority & reasonable means

Purpose: Charter Improvement Proposals - CIP 2
Status: Public Notification & Drafting
Voting: July 14 - 28
Author(s): @lee007
Reviewers: -


dGov proposes ANT holders approve changes to the Aragon Network DAO Charter in respect to the Aragon Network DAO Agreement S 2 (f) which currently reads

f. Modifications to the Aragon Network DAO Agreement
i. ANT Holders may only modify the rules of this Agreement as follows:
1. The Immutable Guidelines must not be modified.
2. The Mutable Guidelines may be modified by:
a. Majority (more than 50% in favour) vote, with a minimum quorum of 0.5% of ANT
Holders. The ANT Holders must be notified of the suggested amendment through
reasonable means at least thirty (30) days before the beginning of the vote, and
the vote must be open for a minimum of fourteen (14) days for the community to
3. Voting must be organised in Aragon Voice

We propose that ANT holders vote on the following changes

  • reduce the minimum quorum from the current 0.5% to 0.3%
  • reduce the notification period from 30 to 21 or14 days
  • reduce existing ambiguity by clearly defining what constitutes a “majority” and “reasonable means”
  • reformatting this section for clarity

The lower quorum can be a temporary measure to ensure we can make the necessary changes to the Charter to make AN DAO ready for the transfer of funds and could be increased in direct proportion to the size of the treasury we hold. Deciding this now would be a safeguard.


The rationale for these recommendations is to enable ANT holders to effectively iterate the Charter, to establish by collective design a living document - as the foundation of AN DAO governance - a document that is easier to read, understand and interact with.

These changes will help address the following barriers to effectively iterating on the Charter

1.Quorum: Historical engagement on proposals of <0.2% of the Network the DAO can not effectively iterate on the Charter, without ongoing and repeated support of major stakeholders
2. Attention: 44 days is a long time to request people’s attention on any single topic
3. Ambiguity: varying interpretations of “majority” and “reasonable means” creates ambiguity
4. Complexity. The current alpha-numeric referencing of the charter is overly complex


Public Notification & Feedback
As per the current Charter: The Argon Network DAO Agreement this proposal is subject to a minimum 30 days of public notification to be followed by a 14-day voting window. We welcome all feedback to help clarify and improve this proposal and will aim to address all comments within 48 hours.

The proposed date for voting to begin is 14 July 2022. We ask ANT holders to vote either Yes or No. The suggested text for the vote is:

- Yes / No, reduce the quorum from 0.5% to 0.1% [removed based on signalling proposal]

  • Yes / No, reduce the quorum from 0.5% to 0.3%
  • Yes / No, reduce the notification period from 30 days to 21 days
  • Yes / No, reduce the notification period from 30 days to 14 days
  • Yes / No, approve the proposed text for the Aragon Network DAO Agreement S [TBD]

The vote will be decided by the definition of “majority” advised by the Compliance Committee. To reduce ambiguity a definition will be published as part of the final version of this Proposal and will establish the precedent that dGov will look to uphold for consistency and governance legitimacy. Current compliance advice

@eaglelex here reasonable means, abstain and majority votes
@eaglelex here majority, dual choice vote (yes/no), abstain
@ronald_k here majority, dual choice vote (yes/no)

Modifications to the Aragon Network DAO Agreement

The opening of this discussion and notification period means that the above proposal is subject to community and advisory-informed edits. For transparency, dGov will work to ensure that the final text of this proposal and related Charter text will be provided by 7 July 2022, noting items shown as [TDB] will be decided by this vote

Aragon Network DAO Agreement [Indicative Draft Only]

  1. ANT Holders may only modify the rules of this Aragon Network DAO Agreement as follows
    3.1 The Immutable Guidelines must not be modified.
    3.2 The Mutable Guidelines may be modified by
    a. [TBD] majority vote and
    b. minimum quorum of [TBD} % of ANT and
    c. ANT holder notified of amendment by reasonable [TBD] means and
    d. notified at least [TBD] days before the beginning of the vote, and
    e. the vote must be open for a minimum of fourteen (14) days and
    f. voting must be organised in Aragon Voice. [subject to results of Tech Agnostic Proposal which could see this clause removed]

Open Questions

  1. What is our understanding of reasonable means can we simply state forum posts &/or something else to reduce ambiguity?
  2. Thoughts on quorum + majority to pass changes to the charter?
  3. What is a reasonable amount of time for this process?
  4. Immutable Guidelines deserves its own conversation here
  5. The lower quorum is proposed as a temporary measure and seeking input on when and how this should be increased in future.

For additional content please see Charter Updates - Discussion

@eaglelex @ronald_k @Tayy @mlphresearch @joeycharlesworth @AlexClay @luis @jorge @fartunov @daniel-ospina @jessicasmith @mheuer @alex-kampa @Sertac


This iterative approach to evolving the charter is definitely a step in the right direction that has been long overdue!

Progressive iteration is a better path to the wholesale change that has been proposed, so I’m very glad to see this happening!

About “reasonable means”: this is very hard to define as the forum, discord, etc. Could suffer outages at which point a proposal could not be shared there.

That’s why instead of using a simplistic mechanism (defining things in black and white up front) the charter used two higher variety mechanisms that can arbiter on this:

  • compliance committee and Aragon court

Then, we have “best practices” for simplicity and so everyday users don’t run the risk of being incompliant.


Hi @lee0007 ,

Thank you for posting this and attempting to improve the effectiveness of governance. Regarding the suggested reduction in the quorum minimum, what steps are being taken to increase voter turnout as opposed to reducing the quorum? I am not particularly informed on the issues related to low voter turnout other than issues upgrading old ANT tokens, however, in my opinion the current quorum minimum is already ridiculously low and further reducing it cannot be seen as an improvement in any decentralized governance, other that it being a workaround.

Thanks Renee.

1 Like

Yes, agree

It is not ideal and is intended to be temporary with stakeholder engagement built in parallel. I will update the proposal to reflect this temporary nature.

Without a lower quorum already signalled here we are wholly reliant a few non-engaged stakeholders to pass EVERY vote. We need to vote to progress mission-critical changes to the Charter that will get us to the position of being suitable for the pending transfer of funds.

There are other options on the table such as launching a new DAO

@lee0007, thank you so much for this very well written post.
As to the relevant points that you mention:

  1. I agree with what @daniel-ospina points out as to the need of not exactly specifying the tooling. In my opinion we shoult intend “Reasonable means” as something like “the prevailing social network platforms and communication tools used by the AN DAO community from time to time”. It would clarify what is intended (e.g. Discord, Forum and Twitter), but without nominate them.

  2. Quorum is low, but I think that it corresponds to the actual engagement that we have in this community. So I would bring it to 0.3%. Otherwise I fear that we will remain stucked with this text. As to the meaning of majority (and also for the quorum), the problem are the “abstentions” and votes with more than 2 options. It seems to me that abstentions were used in the AN DAO to meet the quorum. I would frankly indicate in the Charter that abstentions do not count as a vote and do not count for the quorum. In addition, I would specify that the option that gets more votes prevails. In fact, we should also consider cases in which ANT holders will be required to select among three or more different options (e.g. 20 days; 30 days; 40 days). In these cases the 50% rule would not make so much sense. An alternative could be that we require only dual votes.

  3. I think that the modifications proposed by @lee0007 as to the periods to express the vote are reasonable. I support them!

1 Like

Thank you, Renee for driving the discussion!

  1. Reasonable means - Discord, Forum, and Twitter can be down. The world wide web can be down as well. Should we design around that as well at this stage? I do like what @eaglelex is suggesting in spirit, except instead of referring to “community” we should be explicit that it should reach the people/organizations that can vote (have legitimate voting power).

  2. For me the quorum question is closed by the current signaling vote on Voice and Snapshot

  3. Shortening timelines make sense

  4. On the tech agnostic and immutable guidelines I have shared thoughts in the respective threads.

1 Like

Agree, I value @eaglelex guidance too and your point to be explicit about who we are trying to engage in voting. Would “ANT holders” cover that?

I am looking to confirm the signalled consensus as I do not see a signalling proposal that opens with - “Important! In all cases, the Aragon Association (AA) will consider the answer with the highest support as the winning option” - as a basis for building decentralised governance.

Moreover, in the final stages it was decided to contravene the legal advice provided by Charter mandated, governing compliance members

@eaglelex here majority, dual choice vote (yes/no), abstain
@ronald_k here majority, dual choice vote (yes/no)

Effectively the vote was great for signalling but imo provides no legitimacy for decentralised governance, which is why I am here.

Thank you for helping to drive these conversations and you valuable insights across all of these topics @fartunov

On the question of defining what “reasonable means” is, I believe this could be achieved through naming 5 outlets where these notifications would be made, 1 being the aragon forum itself and 4 other platforms, such as social media channels.

The notification through reasonable means is achieved if the token holders are able to access the notification through at least 3 out of the 5 of these. This would also help compensate for the possibility of outages / platform closures etc, during the voting period.

At the end of each cycle/season/year/period, the relevant committee can update this list of 4 other platforms depending on latest trends/technical developments.

1 Like