Lowering Quorum Threshold & Seeking $SheetP Approval

Proposal: Lower Voting Threshold and Approve $SHEETp Collateral


Propose a two-fold initiative aimed at improving our governance process within the Hifi community:

1. Lower Voting Threshold:

A Suggestion that we lower the current voting threshold from 2,404,000 HIFI tokens to 1,000,000 HIFI tokens. This adjustment is vital because, in recent votes, we’ve experienced unanimous support for proposals but fell short of the quorum requirement. By lowering the threshold, we aim to encourage more active participation from community members and ensure that proposals with overwhelming support can proceed.

2. Vote on $SHEETp Collateral and Ongoing Support:

In addition to lowering the voting threshold, we propose that we initiate a vote to approve $SHEETp as collateral within the Hifi Protocol. This integration will grant Sheet Heads NFT holders the ability to utilize their $SHEETp as collateral for loans, providing additional liquidity and opportunities for the community.

Furthermore, a suggestion that we commit to ongoing votes to support and approve $SHEETp as collateral while we simultaneously address the quorum issue. It’s crucial to recognize that, while we have strong community support for proposals like these, the high quorum requirement poses a significant challenge to passing votes.

To break this conundrum, we must vote to lower the quorum threshold so that future proposals can be approved more effectively.


The Hifi community has consistently demonstrated unanimous support for initiatives like the integration of $SHEETp as collateral. However, the quorum requirement has hindered the progress of these proposals. By implementing these changes, we aim to:

  • Encourage greater community engagement and participation.
  • Ensure that proposals with overwhelming support can move forward.
  • Establish a clear path to address the quorum challenge.


  • Facilitates decision-making and progress within the Hifi ecosystem.
  • Provides additional utility for $SHEETp and Sheet Heads NFT holders.
  • Sets the stage for future votes to pass more smoothly once the quorum threshold is reduced.

Action Plan:

  1. Initiate a discussion and gather feedback from the community regarding the proposed lower voting threshold and the approval of $SHEETp as collateral.

  2. If there is a general consensus in favor of these changes, proceed to formal votes for both initiatives.

  3. Recognize that while we strive for the approval of $SHEETp as collateral, addressing the quorum issue is crucial for the long-term success of our governance process.

Inviting the community to engage in this discussion and share their thoughts on these important matters.

Together, we can navigate this conundrum and create a more effective governance framework for Hifi.

1 Like

I understand that everyone hates me and never shares my opinion but sadly this time will likely not be any different.

Lowering the threshold would not be needed if we had a larger active community that was willing to participate in the voting.

To me, I feel as if the reasoning for the proposal is flawed for the following reasons.

  1. “Encourage greater community engagement and participation”
    ~Lowering the voting threshold does not encourage community engagement OR participation. I would argue that it almost does the opposite because lowering it so dramatically will allow for a small group of current whales to pass literally any proposal that they want with minimal engagement and participation from the smaller holders in the community. It would benefit the whales because they can ban together and push through whatever they want and may not even need smaller community HiFi holders to vote at all before it would pass the proposed new lower Quorum threshold.

  2. “Ensure that proposals with overwhelming support can move forward”
    ~ Again this does not help or address the root problem when it comes to meeting the current Quorum vote count and that is lack of community members who are willing to vote OR HiFi’s lack of diversity in community members holding HiFi tokens who can vote.

  3. “Establish a clear path to address the quorum challenge”
    ~ As mentioned above, the current Quorum threshold would be perfectly fine if there was many more active members in the community who were also willing to vote.

So in my opinion, lowering the threshold so dramatically could potentially cause problems as well as do the opposite of what is intended and that is to encourage community members to participate.

If you do want to lower the Quorum threshold so dramatically, I think that that “Delegation of Votes” should be abolish completely and make it so everyone must vote for themselves on each and every proposal.

Lowering the threshold and still allowing delegate votes would completely bypass the need for community support since 2 accounts could pass each and every proposal even if everyone else in the community was against said proposal.
Example and Proof:

Doug currently has delegate votes totaling 494,000
The account ending in Bcee007. Has votes totaling 523,000

Combine they have 1 million votes at present time. Meaning if the Quorum was lowered to 1 million. They could propose anything under the moon and just those 2 accounts could pass the vote every time even if no one else ever voted.
Making the smaller holders in the community feel worthless and making them feel as if their opinion does not matter.

So if you want to lower the Quorum threshold so dramatically, I would suggest we abolish the “Delegate votes” all together, so that it requires more participation from the community and not just the approval of 2 accounts.

The alternative solution, is the same one that has been said time and time again in discord. Something needs to be done to encourage new members to join and participate in the community by voting as well as on discord.
More active community members “SHOULD” also equal more active voting members that we currently do not have thus passing proposals is difficult at the moment.
So maybe what we need is a new marking strategy to bring in new members and not to make the current system easier to be possibly manipulated.

That’s my opinion on the proposed changes anyway.