I wanted to start a discussion about bringing Polkadot closer to a 2/3 majority voting threshold for proposals to pass, with a specific focus on spending proposals.
In crypto and blockchain governance, it’s often better to err on the side of caution. Polkadot was designed to function effectively even without any proposals passing, and, realistically, an overwhelming number of participants will support proposals addressing critical ecosystem needs. In such an environment, it’s more advantageous to preserve conditions that are proven to work rather than risking a shift into untested territory under a marginal consensus.
Right now we have a system where large whales can back a multi-million dollar marketing proposal and get it passed with ~50% of the vote, even if it’s highly controversial. This takes a good condition, money in the treasury, and puts us into an untested condition, millions spent on a random marketing idea.
Even worse than that, because we exist in an environment where you can have a few whales on one side of a proposal and tons of smaller DOT holder community members on another side, you can end up with a proposal passing even when the majority of the real world community (human beings, as opposed to DOT held) is actually against the proposal.
In such a scenario, before the effectiveness of the proposal is even tested, you already have at least half the community perceiving it negatively, if not more. You’ll see comments online about how people are throwing away Polkadot’s value and how whales are dominating the ecosystem. This is completely avoidable negative sentiment that hurts both the community and the reputation of Polkadot. If the proposal then fails to achieve meaningful results, you’re left with even more upset community members, further damaging the ecosystem.
I just don’t see the point of this system. If roughly 50% of staked DOT is in favor of a proposal and 50% is against it, why should we pass it just because an additional 1-2% is on the side in favor?
If the requirement were a 2/3 supermajority, you would defuse much of the outrage. A supermajority would make a much stronger case that the community truly supports the proposal. It would likely result in significantly more people and more DOT in favor of a passing proposal—or at the very least, there would be significantly fewer people opposed.
2/3 majority = more enthusiasm and/or less backlash for every proposal that passes
~50% majority = more backlash and controversy for every proposal that passes
The downside, of course, is that some proposals that could be beneficial for the community, but lack the support of large stakeholders, may be blocked under a 2/3 majority system. However, I don’t see this as inherently problematic. If the community as a whole has already agreed that the current system is working, and that larger changes should only occur with a solid consensus, then a 2/3 threshold simply reinforces that caution. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, I think it’s reasonable to assume that well-crafted proposals addressing critical needs will not be blocked by more than a third of the community.
In the end, it’s in everyone’s best interest to pass proposals that improve Polkadot, but having a 2/3 majority requirement allows us to build stronger agreement on what constitutes a genuine improvement versus something that could potentially harm the ecosystem.