Modify Snapshot Voting Parameters

Let’s start with a warm thank you for all that participated in the Snapshots this past weekend! :partying_face:Here is an overview of the Snapshot votes that ended on July 12th, as well as a proposal to adjust the Snapshot voting parameters.

Snapshot - Off Chain Voting

Snapshot is a utility that allows projects to create votes or signals for their communities, the files are kept in IPFS and what makes this really attractive is there are no gas costs to vote. Snapshot is fast and just requires a signature from the wallet, unlike our on-chain votes which can modify the underlying contracts and requires gas to vote.

First Snapshot Post-Mortem:

Currently the Instadapp Snapshot is being utilized to make minor changes that do not affect the underlying contract architecture and safety, for example enabling a connector on the DSL or allocating resources.

Last weekend we ran our first snapshot and here were the results:

Instadapp Growth Fund Passed
Integrate Liquity Protocol Passed
Increase Liquidity Reward Mining Failed - did not achieve quorum

How do we illustrate these changes?

I would propose using a unified numbering for both on/off-chain votes. That would make the two passing proposals combined - IGP#2 - Liquidity Integration and Community Fund

High Quorum for Snapshot

For this first Snapshot we mirrored the on-chain parameters as these were the only established governance parameters. These requirements are quite high for minor changes compared with current circulating supply, INST tokens in staking pools, and the amount of INST tokens in the Treasury.

Currently quorum requires 4% of the total supply, this constitutes 22% of the current circulating supply (~18M) and this does not take into account tokens that are staked or for other reasons inaccessible.

Proposed Snapshot Requirements:
-50K to submit a snapshot (No Change)
-250K to achieve Quorum
-Simple Majority decides

Under the proposed changes, the Liquidity Mining Rewards would have passed along with the other two proposals. Lowering the snapshot will make governance more dynamic, easier to access, and separate out the higher governance requirements for major code changes.

Change Snapshot/Off-Chain Voting Parameters?
  • Agree to the proposed Snapshot Changes
  • Agree to change but disagree with the proposed changes
  • No Change

0 voters


We strongly support this proposal as well.


I support this proposal as well and I’d like to discuss the 250k to achieve quorum. This seems a bit low to me and I only think the number of participants/INST tokens will increase over time, so the 250k will be easily met moving forward.

If we took 4% of the current liquidity (18,000,000 * .04) we would be at 720,000 to achieve quorum. While this would not have allowed the LM Rewards to pass, it would still be keeping with the 4%, but just of liquid supply.

In theory we could update this amount as more tokens get unlocked and keep it pegged at 4%.


I agree with this. We want to ensure that proposals with too little stake can’t just push proposals through. We want to have some minimum participation.


I agree with @miscao & @Gustav here. Can increase the minimum limit.


I am going to place another poll here. Snapshot is taking a larger role with the proposal Streamlining Integrations. Let’s find an agreeable quorum.

  • 250K for Quorum
  • 500K for Quorum
  • 750K for Quorum
  • 1m for Quorom

0 voters

@miscao % of Circulating Supply could be a good parameter, we should explore this in the future. The team would also need to build a query for this value.


Totally agree with you.
And two out of three proposals have passed means proposals really required can reach quorum.

Look the first proposal " Pass Integrate Liquity Protocol".
It got 4.5M INST vote from a single address. This single whale can decide what he/she want right now. In this consideration, I think an “INCREASE” of quorum should be added to options.

1 Like

Yes, for now much of the INST is held by the team and initial investors. The hope is over time INST will be dispersed to more holders and also delegated to others outside the initial group. Delegation can always change or be reversed, so I think the team is being conscious of this.

At the end of the day, before the governance token, the team was controlling everything, so now we are one step closer to true governance. This will take true participation from all parties.