IIP-80: Meta Governance Proposals [MGP] Process

Thanks for writing this up! Exciting to see the growing influence of Index within the broader ecosystem.

Just curious, why 80% and not a lower threshold like 2/3?


60% was the originally proposed number. During both community calls (Western and APAC) there was broad consensus to raise the threshold.

As stated on those calls and in all public discussion these parameters represent a first draft, and will require data from this process being live to hone in. Much like how UNI and COMP have changed various governance parameters.


Makes sense! I suppose we could start at 80% and adjust downwards if issues pop up


The 1% proposal threshold; 10% quorum and 80% approval should all be looked at as we get data and see how this is used, especially as more Index is distributed and governance actors become aware of this pathway


This IIP failed to pass as quorum was not reached. Only 121k INDEX voted whereas the quorum requirement was 208k INDEX.

1 Like

What a shame.
There a breakdown of which actors voted for and against yet, or does that need to wait until the attack vector workshop?

Hi @Stefan all voting records can be seen at the snapshot


1 Like

Thanks for that, “I’ll” take a closer look.
Shouldn’t be hard, just need to check who didn’t vote.

I’m going to assume a wallet address doesn’t count as personal information, right?
So it shouldn’t be difficult to check which wallets received contributor rewards and didn’t vote on the proposal?

Am I understanding the situation correctly?

Hey, Christopher from 1kx here,

We’ve made a mistake in voting against this proposal and have accidentally voted against IIP-81 instead.

Our main reason for wanting to vote No on IIP-80 was that we felt that an 80% threshold was far too high. The highest practical thresholds for a supermajority in traditional voting is 75%, with 66% being the most practically used example of a supermajority.

We also feel that there would be no practical path to reduce that threshold in the future because every failure in the voting threshold would be easily justifiable as not a good proposal in the first place. We would therefore propose to start with a supermajority threshold of 66%, with the optionality to raise this further to 75% should this be abused in the future.

Furthermore, we are really excited about this opportunity that IndexCoop brings to decentralised governance.
Far too many protocols are too centralised, such that only a few individuals selected by the protocol can create proposals, and IndexCoop can provide an outlet for more democratic participation in these protocols through meta governance proposals. So while we agree that this needs to be treated carefully, we also wouldn’t want to practically restrict IndexCoop from becoming an important meta governance proposal creator.

We are in agreement with the 10% quorum and 1% INDEX proposal threshold requirements though and feel they are appropriate given the sensible nature of meta governance proposals.



Thanks for your feedback @HeyChristopher ! We are hoping to schedule another community call to discuss changes (including the lowering of the approval threshold) ASAP. With a revised framework going to snapshot Monday.

cc: @sixtykeys @Pepperoni_Joe @mel.eth


Community call is 3:30PM UTC (11:30AM ET, 9:30AM PT) on Friday Sept 10.

Snapshot vote on the revised IIP will be on Monday. Changes will be posted here after the community call should consensus be reached.


thanks for taking the time to share this :pray:


Really appreciate this reply and insight, thank you. I hope you can continue to take part in the forum and that meta governance becomes an ever greater IC strength.


Thanks a lot for clarifying and providing this insight!
Great to hear that we’re aligned on the overall goal of IIP-80. As David mentioned above, we’ll discuss the proposed changes in a call, and aim to do a vote early next week.
Feel free to contact us if there are any additional open points regarding this proposal.


We have edited IIP-80 to reflect the new community consensus.

There is a change of passing threshold for MGP’s, from 80% FOR, to 66% (2/3) FOR.

Formally requesting a vote this Monday @sixtykeys @Pepperoni_Joe @mel.eth


In general, I’m aligned with this proposal. Meta-governance has value and I am sure there will be more requests to lend Index’s governance to create proposals. I just have a couple questions:

  1. Has anyone taken a look at Votium which, at first blush, appears to be an effort to purchase Convex governance? They rather bluntly state that you’ll receive “bribes” from delegating your governance rights.

  2. Why stop at Metagovernance proposals? In other words, shouldn’t Index be allowed to lend its influence (for a fee) on other governance issues?

  3. What are the checks and balances (if any) on waiving the 2.0 Eth fee? I understand that there must be disclosure, but what prevents the committee from proposing a waiver and then secretly soliciting a smaller payment that benefits only them? Casting no aspersions with this question. I’m just wondering if it’s been discussed.


Hi @laramie addressing the last point specifically, the Fee waiver is decided prior to the MGP vote, so if INDEX holders disagree with the decision they can still reject.

Friendly reminder that we are still below quorum!


1 Like

Hey @HeyChristopher as indicated above, we did another round of feedback and agreed on the adjusted quorum numbers. The new proposal is currently live and it would be great to have 1kx participating in the vote.
Let us know if there are any questions, thanks!

1 Like

Confirming that this IIP has failed on second submission. The snapshot failed to meet its quorum requirements.
Quorum required was 208,312 INDEX and only 121,703 INDEX voted, with 99.94% FOR.
Snapshot here