# \[RFC\] Adjusting Governance Quorum & Proposal Threshold **URL:** \ **Category:** Request for Comment \[RFCs\]\ **Tags:** rfc, quorum, governance, threshold\ **Created:** [April 10, 2026, 2:25pm UTC](https://forum.summer.fi/t/rfc-adjusting-governance-quorum-proposal-threshold/803 "2026-04-10T14:25:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![jensei](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex009/user_avatar/forum.summer.fi/jensei/32/69_2.png) [@jensei](https://forum.summer.fi/u/jensei)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2026, 2:25pm UTC](https://forum.summer.fi/t/rfc-adjusting-governance-quorum-proposal-threshold/803/1 "2026-04-10T14:25:21Z")
### 1. Summary: This RFC proposes adjusting Lazy Summer DAO’s governance parameters, specifically **increasing quorum requirements and raising the proposal submission threshold** to better align governance security with the current distribution of voting power. At present, governance can be significantly influenced by a small number of large delegates, creating a structural risk where **a single delegate (or a tightly coordinated small group) can approach or reach quorum thresholds with limited broader participation**. The goal of this RFC is to introduce **more robust guardrails against governance capture while preserving operational efficiency** , and to align proposal creation and execution thresholds with the DAO’s evolving scale and active voting participation. This RFC also introduces an **informal support indicator poll** to guide parameter selection before moving toward a formal SIP. * * * ### 2. Context & Motivation: Lazy Summer DAO has grown into a more mature governance system with: - Institutional partners and protocol complexity - Expanding vault and ARK strategies - A growing but still concentrated delegation set - ~114M actively participating voting power Current governance parameters: - **Quorum:** 15% of stSUMR supply (~39.15M stSUMR) - **Proposal Threshold:** 10,000 stSUMR > _ **Governor Contract:** [Address: 0x4cEeE1b6...d5f2c3274 | BaseScan](https://basescan.org/address/0x4cEeE1b6289624d381383C1Bb42B118d5f2c3274)_ While these parameters were appropriate during earlier phases of bootstrapping governance, current conditions introduce emerging structural risks: - The largest delegate holds ~50M voting power - Top 3 delegates combined exceed ~110M voting power - Active governance participation is ~114M voting power total - This creates a scenario where: - Quorum can be approached or influenced by a small subset of delegates - Proposal creation remains extremely accessible relative to system size - Coordination risk increases in low-participation voting cycles **Here I think we should aim to ensure that:** - No single delegate (or tightly coordinated subset) can meaningfully influence quorum outcomes alone - Proposal creation remains accessible but not trivial - Governance reflects **broad participation, not concentrated activation** - The system scales safely as delegation continues to consolidate or evolve * * * ### 3. Proposal: This RFC explores **adjustments to two core governance parameters: quorum and proposal threshold**. Rather than prescribing a single fixed change, this RFC proposes **three example options for community evaluation/editting**. #### 3.1 Option A: Moderate Increase - **Quorum:** 15% → **20% of stSUMR supply** - **Proposal Threshold:** 10,000 → **50,000 stSUMR** ##### Rationale: - Increases safety margin without making governance overly rigid - Preserves current participation dynamics - Still accessible for mid-sized delegates and working groups ##### Effect: - Requires broader coalition-building for execution - Slightly reduces spam/low-signal proposals #### 3.2 Option B: Stronger Security Upgrade - **Quorum:** 15% → **25% of stSUMR supply** - **Proposal Threshold:** 10,000 → **100,000 stSUMR** ##### Rationale: - Aligns quorum more closely with active governance supply distribution - Ensures no single delegate or top 2–3 can meaningfully influence outcomes alone - Encourages stronger coordination across delegate set ##### Effect: - Higher coordination requirement for passing proposals - Stronger anti-capture guarantee - May reduce governance throughput slightly #### 3.3 Option C: Strong Security Upgrade - **Quorum:** 15% → **30% of stSUMR supply** - **Proposal Threshold:** 10,000 → **1,000,000 stSUMR** ##### Rationale: - Adapts to governance participation trends over time - Prevents over-hardcoding parameters in a rapidly evolving DAO - Creates structured separation between low-impact and high-impact proposals ##### Effect: - Most flexible and future-proof - Higher complexity in governance design - Requires offchain coordination or governance module upgrades * * * ### 4. Open Questions: Feedback is especially needed on: - Should quorum increases prioritize **security (capture resistance)** or **efficiency (proposal throughput)**? - What level of friction is acceptable for small contributors or working groups? - What other proposed amounts are sensible options here? * * * ### 5. Next Steps: - Gather community feedback across [@Recognized\_Delegates](https://forum.summer.fi/groups/recognized_delegates) and contributors - Run informal support poll (below) - Evaluate preferred direction - Refine into formal SIP if consensus emerges * * * ### 6. Informal Support Indicator: To gauge delegate sentiment before formalizing this into a SIP: #### 6.1 What quorum adjustment do you support? _Poll ([view on site](https://forum.summer.fi/t/rfc-adjusting-governance-quorum-proposal-threshold/803/1))_ #### 6.2 What threshold adjustment do you support? _Poll ([view on site](https://forum.summer.fi/t/rfc-adjusting-governance-quorum-proposal-threshold/803/1))_ * * * As governance participation matures and delegation continues to concentrate, parameter design becomes a **core security surface of the DAO**. This RFC is intended to open discussion on whether current settings still reflect the **risk profile and scale of Lazy Summer Protocol governance today** , or whether we should proactively evolve safeguards before they become necessary. Looking forward to feedback from [@Recognized\_Delegates](https://forum.summer.fi/groups/recognized_delegates), contributors, and Lazy Summer community. –jensei ---
**Author:** ![Sixty](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex009/user_avatar/forum.summer.fi/sixty/32/115_2.png) [@Sixty](https://forum.summer.fi/u/Sixty)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2026, 10:15am UTC](https://forum.summer.fi/t/rfc-adjusting-governance-quorum-proposal-threshold/803/2 "2026-04-13T10:15:49Z")
Hey @jensei, thanks for bringing this forward. I agree with the overall sentiment of the proposal. If it’s not too much work, I would propose we gradually increase the parameters from option A towards option C. This would look something like this: - Immediately increase to option A now, - increase to option B in Q3 if governance stability continues, - and finally increase to option C in Q4 if governance stability is achieved with option B. This allows us to find an equilibrium over time, rather than prescribing a single parameter change. ---
**Author:** ![jensei](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex009/user_avatar/forum.summer.fi/jensei/32/69_2.png) [@jensei](https://forum.summer.fi/u/jensei)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2026, 10:53am UTC](https://forum.summer.fi/t/rfc-adjusting-governance-quorum-proposal-threshold/803/3 "2026-06-29T10:53:48Z")
Closed on June 29, 2026, 10:53am UTC