It’s not just 3% must vote on the proposal…it’s 3% must vote to Accept the proposal to meet the minimum voting threshold requirement. That’s an important difference. This means 9M votes need to be cast to pass and that is only if all votes Approve and none Reject. That’s a minimum of 4.5M ICP staked for 8 years or maximum of 9M ICP staked for 6 months. That’s a significant amount of ICP.
Any time there are big moves in votes that are cast or they swing the outcome, the wait for quiet mechanism extends the voting period. Waiting until the end of a vote doesn’t help a nefarious actor because that just extends the voting period significantly.
When governance motion proposals pass, they have no executable code attached. Hence, the next step is to develop executable code and attach it to another proposal that also has to pass. If a controversial proposal slips by on the motion proposal, I’m pretty confident it will not slip by on the second round.
We have had several proposals in the last few weeks that have stimulated thought, intellectual honesty, and spirited debate. The importance of these discussions are not lost on the IC community. I think the governance process is working as intended.
I don’t think low voter turnout should be interpreted solely as voter apathy. This topic on the forum started 2 months ago and generated more than 3k views. It is a topic that was well researched and well considered by the IC community. Passing a proposal is not supposed to be easy though.
IMHO any time a proposal is made with short notice it will have a hard time generating enough votes to pass. People need to know in advance when the proposal will be submitted and they need to know exactly what will be submitted at the time the announcement is made (not when the proposal is submitted). The exact wording and meaning of the proposal is also very important, so if there is any ambiguity then it will usually have a difficult time passing.
Also, proposals need to be advertised more broadly than just on the forum. Announcements need to go out on all forms of social media. The IC community will only promote the proposals (e.g. re-tweet) if they feel like it is a proposal that should be broadly advertised.
I don’t think we should be making any changes the voting thresholds at this time. We get paid in the form of ICP to participate in governance and I think the discussions that have happened over the last several weeks have shown that people will do their research and solidify their convictions on the various topics. We are not all going to agree on all topics and we all have our reasons for our positions, but one thing I think we all have in common is that we will vote with the long term best interest of the IC in mind because if we don’t then our ICP value will be negatively affected. If a vote passes by slim majority then so be it. Both sides will learn, reflect, and then advocate for their convictions harder the next time.