[PROPOSAL #81][VOTE ON-CHAIN] Atom Zero Constitution

Atom Zero Constitution:


  • two thirds supermajority: where more than 2/3rd of all staked ATOM voters vote YES and the participation rate is above the current governance quorum minimum limit, as of when the voting period has concluded. ABSTAIN votes count as NO votes for the purpose of supermajority calculation.

Article Zero:

Proposals with the following elements require a two thirds supermajority to pass:

  • any changes to tokenomics beyond what is already implemented (besides bug fixes).
  • any inflation of tokens beyond the default inflation of ATOMs.
  • any changes to the governance process.
  • any adoption of a constitution (except this minimal constitution).

Until the governance mechanism is changed to reflect this constitution, a proposal that requires a two thirds majority as defined above but does not pass with a two thirds supermajority will be deemed to have failed, even if they pass with a simple majority according to existing logic.

If this proposal passes with a simple majority, the proposals that are concurrent with this proposal (especially the ATOM ONE and ATOM2.0 proposals) shall require a two thirds supermajority to be deemed to have passed.


Why 2/3? I understand the mathematical inclination. I’m just curious to whether this has any other meaning to it. For example it seems that changes to default parameters and to the existing governance process (both are automatically accepted by me when I created an private key) seem to me requiring a lot more than 2/3 of majority. 1/3 of unhappy citizens is more than enough to revolt, fork, etc. Which is freedom, yes. But then again, its best to prevent a fire, not to put it out. Seems that anything beyond default params, should be 95%+

More than 2/3 majority already means less than 1/3 unhappy citizens which can’t attack the chain under the assumption of voting power not voting would not do any attacks. 95+ is too extreme and it just make not possible to make any changes.

Genuine question:

Why is too extreme (too secure) is a bad thing? Ok, so if we have a case where the existing majority overtakes power, then the chain simply forks.

1/3 of unhappy citizens cant attack the chain, doesnt solve their unhappiness. On the contrary, it creates an economical attack surface. Ok, this in turn creates possibility for competition, but then thats sansara anyways

1 Like

I like the bodl part of 95+%
Not gonna see it happen though, but I like the idea.

The whole problem is imo not to be found in the exact required % of people having to agree with the outcome of a proposal. I am active on a couple of chains, but only on the Hub I see the amount of discussions popping up even if the majority of the people wants to go in a certain direction. On all the other chains the outcome is (in general) respected and we move on.

So for me the solution does not lie in changing this parameter (which would be kinda hard if you would ask me, also because it would be totally different than the majority of chains in the ecosystem), but in finding out why on the Hub we just find it so hard to work together and respect eachothers opinions…