Quorum and CAKE data, food for thought?

I have been having some thoughts recently over SEFI governance and in particular the quorom. There is a great data set available from Pancakeswap. Similar to SEFI, they don’t have validators voting and are dependent on the token holders to vote.

Have a look at these examples and consider we have recently lowered quorom to 25%

218m circulating supply of which a total of 165m is staked and can vote.

Recent proposal to add a pool saw 1m cake vote (~0,6% of eligible CAKE).

Recent proposal to adjust farm rewards saw 5.6m cake vote (~3,3% of eligible CAKE)

Recent proposal to adjust cake emission by 40% (the most significant proposals to ever hit governance) saw 22m cake vote (~13,3% of eligible CAKE)

Now one could argue that the SEFI community is closer and votes more actively as a result, but apparently, that isn’t enough.

Some food for thought? I will let it up to others to discuss the implications of this data and how it could be interpreted for the future of SEFI governance.


I think there’s an interesting case here for removing quorum entirely.


Great post. I think this needs to be discussed sooner than later. Quorum is way too high and should be eliminated all together.


Further research for comparison:

“Quorum: In order for a vote to pass, it must achieve quorum of 4% of all UNI (40M) voting in the affirmative. The purpose of the quorum is to ensure that the only measures that pass have adequate voter participation.”


Apeswap is also 4%

“We’ll require a minimum quorum of 4% of the circulating GNANA supply for a proposal’s results to be honored.”


Agreed it’s far too high and should be none-3%



Quorum: “a total of 4M 1INCH must participate in the vote.”

1.5 billion supply
180.6m circulating
4m is roughly 2.2% repeating of the circulating supply of 1inch.


Excellent post and discussion topic Stefan! Thanks for voicing this. We’ll further this discussion in our committee chats and meetings. ESPECIALLY long term, I don’t think a very high quorum is sustainable, but I think even now a lower quorum would give more power to the community.

1 Like

Thanks for posting this data. I guess the quorum is there to prevent a proposal from passing with very low participation that can potentially harm the network. And relying on the committee to not enforce a low participation vote, erodes trust in the democratic process.


I have to make one correction to my original post.

Only CAKE stakers can vote, so taking the circulating supply as the base wasn’t correct on my part (so much for late evening posts). Total CAKE staked sits around 165m

That makes the percentages that have voted on the examples:
0,6% / 3,3% / 13,3%


Another side of this discussion that I don’t see present in the replies so far is that PancakeSwap does NOT take community proposed proposals and the outcome of those proposals as ‘law’.

For the PancakeSwap proposals that are submitted by the community the outcome serves as a compass/guidance/information for the developers to determine the future of PancakeSwap.

That means considerably more centralization. Lowering the quorum substantially or removing it all together should not only been seen as a mechanic to make governance work better than it does now, it simultaneously introduces more centralization in which the SEFI executive committee should take the liberty to take a proposal and decide not to act on it (with good explanation of course).


Yes, this is certainly interesting in regards to how much control the Exec committee should have.

Right now we’re often struggling at an impasse. Without the voting analytics for proposals that don’t reach quorum, it’s difficult to be certain the direction the community desires we take. We can certainly make many logical inferences, and we strongly take into account the suggestions of the active community members, but much like survey-bias that gives us feedback only from those who actively interact with us on the matter.

I like that this discussion is taking place and would LOVE more community involvement on it. If quorum is too high, the SEFI Exec Committee has more (potentially too much?) power because we could end up acting without recourse based on our own whims and plans, without explicit knowledge of the communities intent or directive from them. A quorum too low would potentially necessitate stronger powers such as vetoing within the SEFI Exec Committee which I don’t believe were intended to be the case when ratified.

We’ve seen through several of their applications and tokenomics that Pancakeswap is pretty centralized, and as such may be privy to resources and powers that might not be wanted or avaliable in this ecosystem. Regardless, their success and innovation is undeniable and there is much to learn from their example! Thank you @Stefan-001 for initiating this much needed discussion.

If anybody has strong opinions about whether the quorum should be eradicated, lowered, remain the same, show analytics, etc., and what the ramifications would be in regards to the Exec Committee, I’d love to hear them! We’re also weighing over other potential governance incentives, but perhaps a quorum adjustment could assist these, or even negate the need for such potential policies!


Interesting discussion and data. Looks like our quarum % is way too high. @Stefan-001 any examples where the quarum % is as high as ours and still works?


For a protocols that are dependent on each individual holder to vote, I do not know of a protocol that has a quorum close to the quorum on SecretSwap. The quorum on Secret Network works due to the validators taking a more central role and voting for many people that don’t involve themselves with governance.


I’ve brought up lowering quorum on secret network so we can still be efficient as exchanges and big bag absent parties come. Watching this thread closely, especially since 2 of the top 3 weighted validators don’t vote on all proposals.


Where do we stand with this? Will the quorum be lowered in the near future?


Circling back to this, I now would prefer for quorum to be removed entirely. There will be platforms and applications that will actively stake SEFI without voting which would have governance implications. The SecretSwap Committee would continue to bring attention to active proposals both on Social Media and in weekly meetings, but individuals would have to actively vote no on proposals they didn’t like, as opposed to passively letting them wither.

Hmmm. I’m not sure I agree with having a complete removal of quorum. That would imply proposals pass by default, basically, no?

However, I certainly do support reducing the quorum down to a few %.


It would require no-votes. Essentially lowering quorum substantially (eyeing 5-10% right now) would do the same thing, but not be TECHNICALLY impacted by application involvement. Lowering quorum seems to be the more popular opinion and I think that’s fine.