Q International Foundation will abstain from voting on Q Proposal #2 but encourages re-submission after splitting the proposal in two distinct components with different quorum and majority requirements

Q International Foundation acknowledges the submission of Q Proposal #2, which at the time of this writing is active and can be voted on by QGOV Token Holders.

Since the proposal is — in our view correctly — classified as a “Fundamental Change” (cf. Appendix 1, Part A of the Q Constitution), it requires a 50% quorum and 75% majority to pass (cf. Appendix 5, 3. of the Q Constitution). Given current token ownership by the Q International Foundation, this means that acceptance of the proposal depends on the position which Q International Foundation will take with regards to the proposal.

After careful consideration, Q International Foundation has decided to abstain from voting on Q Proposal #2. In the following, we explain our thought process that has led to this decision.

Structure of the proposal

After analyzing the proposal, we find that it can be viewed as consisting of two distinct parts:

1 ) Several of wording changes to the Q Constitution which mostly serve as clarifications of the current constitution.

In our view, these changes do not result in substantial changes to the Q protocol. Based on our review, we find that all of those proposed changes seem to be reasonable, well thought-through and drafted with a high degree of diligence.

Although these proposed updates do not result in substantial changes for Q Stakeholders, they are classified as “Fundamental change”. This may be counter-intuitive but is nevertheless correct in our view, since one word in the Preamble of the Constitution, which falls under the “Fundamental” section, is changed.

2 ) An update of two constitution parameters, namely the maximum number of root nodes (constitution.maxNRootNodes) and the maximum number of validator nodes (constitution.maxNValidators).

In our view, these parameter changes may affect Q Stakeholders in a material way and potentially have an impact on the Q protocol’s security. We believe that these proposed changes are reasonable and positive for the Q protocol overall; however, we note that different stakeholders may have different views on these parameter updates.

Analysis and recommendation

Since the parameter updates are lumped together in the same proposal as the wording changes described above, they are part of the Fundamental Constitution proposal which requires a 50% quorum and a 75% majority. However, if these changes had been submitted in isolation, the corresponding proposal would have constituted a “Basic change” of the Q Constitution, requiring only a 25% quorum and a 50% majority.

After engaging with the Q community, we have decided to abstain from voting, but encourage the submitter of Proposal #2 to split the proposal into the two distinct parts as described above and re-submit them at the earliest possible convenience.

We think this is the right path of action for Q International Foundation for two reasons:

Firstly, we believe it is generally good practice to submit unrelated changes via separate proposals. This may not always be practical, but we think that in the case at hand it is. Doing so gives QGOV Token Holders the opportunity to express their opinion on each topic separately, and the resulting outcome will therefore provide a clearer view of the Q Token Holders’ will.

Secondly, splitting up the vote into two distinct proposals enables the Q International Foundation to pass a “neutral” vote on the parameter changes, thereby ensuring that the required quorum is met while not influencing the outcome of the vote itself. As described in clause 2.a. of the Q International Foundation’s Voting Policy, this is the preferred course of action where the Q International Foundation’s votes may be required to reach quorum on an important decision, but it does not intend to interfere with or influence the outcome of the vote, or even vote against the preference of the broader Q community.

For background, as Q International Foundation we generally practice restraint in voting. This philosophy is in line with the Q International Foundation’s role as described in paragraphs 4.7 and 7.8 of the Q Whitepaper. The details of how the Q International Foundation exercises its voting rights as a Q Token Holder are laid down in its Voting Policy, and we believe that the course of action as described above is in line with both the general principles and the specific rules of our Voting Policy.

We applaud the Q community for their active engagement and efforts to improve the Q protocol and hope to see a re-submission of the contents of Q Proposal #2 very soon.