Governance Team Update: Transitioning from Simple Quorum to Optimistic Quorum

Metis Governance Governance proposals
1

Introduction

The Metis Governance team is committed to fostering decentralization while ensuring that we continue to grow as a thriving and inclusive ecosystem. As part of this commitment, we are proposing a shift from a Simple Quorum system to an Optimistic Quorum system for Community Ecosystem Governance (CEG) votes. That includes:

  • Ecosystem Proposals
  • Governance Proposals
  • Emergency Proposals

This change will not affect Sequencer and LST Proposals.

Proposal

We propose modifying the quorum structure for Proposals mentioned above as follows:

  • Current Simple Quorum: A proposal is accepted if FOR votes exceed AGAINST votes, and the total votes (FOR + AGAINST + ABSTAIN) exceed the quorum.
  • Proposed Optimistic Quorum: A proposal is rejected only if AGAINST votes exceed the quorum (5,000 METIS). Otherwise, it is accepted.

This means that proposals will be approved by default unless the community actively votes against them with a strong enough consensus. The 5 day vote period gives the community time to review, conduct research, and identify any potential risks or red flags.

From Snapshot docs :

865Ă—336 41.9 KB

In the case of a failed vote (more than 5,000 METIS AGAINST), there will be a second and final chance through a revote. The revote will use quadratic voting to ensure a fairer distribution of influence and will require a Simple Quorum of 5,000 METIS and 400 participating wallets.

Motivation

  • Simplifying Governance Participation – The current quorum requirements can be difficult to reach, slowing down ecosystem growth. This adjustment makes governance more efficient and scalable.
  • Encouraging More Projects – A lower barrier to entry enables more projects to start building in Metis, bringing more innovation and adoption.
  • Empowering the Community – This approach shifts governance focus to active participation in rejecting projects that do not align with Metis’ vision rather than needing to rally votes for approval.
  • Aligning with Decentralization – Governance should be structured to empower the ecosystem, not restrict it. By optimizing quorum mechanics, we remove unnecessary roadblocks while keeping safety mechanisms in place.

Course of Action

  • Proposal Posting on the Forum: Introduce the change to the community, allowing for open discussion and feedback.
  • Community Discussion & Refinement: Collect feedback, address concerns, and refine the implementation details if needed.
  • Implementation & Monitoring: If no strong objections, apply the new quorum rules and assess their impact over time, making adjustments as necessary.

Conclusion

As the Governance team, it is our responsibility to adapt and refine processes that further decentralization while ensuring Metis continues to grow and attract quality projects. This proposal balances accessibility and security, ensuring governance supports the Metis ecosystem rather than slows it down.

Questions to the Community

What are your thoughts on moving to an Optimistic Quorum system? What do you like about it (or not) and why?

What other changes would you suggest?

Is the proposed quorum of 5,000 METIS AGAINST insufficient, over calculated or fair?

Your input is essential! We invite the community to share their thoughts and help shape the next evolution of Metis Governance.

7 Likes
2

I generally like this kind of voting structure when consensus is the goal (100% agreement). However, consensus (100% agreement) is not the decision-making goal here.

So my main concern is that one individual who holds more than 5000 METIS can block any vote, or a small group of 2-3 ppl who have a combined 5000 METIS can block any proposal and continuously disrupt governance for selfish reasons.

Maybe adding a wallets quorum could mitigate concentrated influence.

Ex: 5000 METIS + 25 wallets AGAINST

2 Likes
3

Love this update actually. Can projects that got rejected twice apply again?

2 Likes
4

I agree with your concern that a single individual or a small group holding 5000 METIS could disrupt governance and block proposals for personal gain. Adding a wallet quorum, such as requiring 5000 METIS plus a minimum number of distinct wallets against a proposal, could help mitigate concentrated influence.

Another potential solution could be implementing a voting power cap per wallet to prevent any single entity from having disproportionate control. For example, even if someone holds more than 5000 METIS, their voting power could be capped at a certain threshold, ensuring that governance remains more decentralized.

This is definitely something that should be carefully thought through to maintain a fair and balanced decision-making process.

5

I’m really loving the new updates team!

I’ve seen some great projects struggle to stay in the ecosystem just because they couldn’t hit 10K METIS or 500 wallet votes (in the previous voting system). I think with this update, it’ll be much easier for solid projects to pass CVP and keep building.

That said, I do have concerns about the “failed vote” rule when there’s more than 5,000 METIS against. I fully support what Cypherpunk and JFitz suggested—one wallet or a few whales shouldn’t have the power to block a project. A max cap on votes per wallet would make things much fairer.

Big thanks to the team for continuously improving the system!

1 Like