[KGP-31] Governance Policy to Encourage GC Voting Participation

The Klaytn Foundation proposes a policy to encourage GC members to actively participate in the governance of the Klaytn mainnet through on-chain voting.

  1. Background

Klaytn introduced on-chain voting in May 2023 by launching Klaytn Square. As of March 2024, the Klaytn Governance Council has conducted 46 on-chain votes. Of these, 43 agendas were approved, 2 were rejected, and 1 was postponed.

Although all votes met the quorum requirement, there have been varying levels of participation among GC members. While the majority of GC members actively engage in governance, some have never participated in voting since the launch of Klaytn Square. On average, 16 GC members participate in votes, with a relatively lower voting turnout in terms of voting power compared to the number of participating GC members. On average, 82 voting power units participate in votes. As of March 2024, the entire voting power of the Klaytn Governance Council is 212.

Given this context, the Klaytn Foundation proposes the following policy.

  1. Suggestions
  • The nodes of GC members who fail to participate in three consecutive votes shall be temporarily removed from the Klaytn network. For the purpose of this policy, a Klaytn Governance Proposal (KGP) is considered as one vote. A KGP can include several voting items. The Klaytn Foundation announces the temporary removal of the nodes of the GC members from the network through the Klaytn governance forum as soon as it takes action.
  • The nodes of the GC members who are removed from the Klaytn network will be reinstated as soon as they participate in any subsequent vote. Regardless of a voting participation, the removed node will be reinstated 7 days later than the removal.
  • Abstentions via Klaytn Square will be considered as participation in the vote. If a GC member explained their opinion on an agenda through the governance forum without voting, it will be considered as participation in the vote.

This policy will remain in effect until the launch of the permissionless network and related policies.


As StableLab values active governance, we support this line of thinking. We understand that there are some GCs who might not be able to participate due to either legal or technical reasons. While those eventually should be resolved, they should share why they are unable to vote.

1 Like

Some members may not have their GC Voter accounts set up yet. It would be beneficial to provide a guide allowing ample time for setup. Additionally, it would be advantageous if GC Vote participation could be quantified similarly to Uptime. This metric could help prevent users from inadvertently voting for excluded entities in future Klaytn Square delegations.

1 Like

I agree with this idea. I think participating in voting is one of the important things to do as a GC member, while I agree with Creder-Itcen that it’s important to provide guidance, but I don’t think it’s too much to penalize people for not voting 3 times in a row without leaving any comments on the forum, as the Fountation suggests.

1 Like

This is a good way to increase GC member participation. I would however suggest to prolong the voting window to 2 weeks, as the larger the companies that are GC members, the more internal processes they might have that require enough time to vote.

1 Like

After posting a proposal here in the governance forum, it usually takes more than 2 weeks until a vote finishes. We will try our best to remind GC members in different ways to make sure that GC members have more time to review the proposals.

Netmarble understands the importance of GC voting participation, but we think some GCs who might not able to participate due to various reasons need ample time to prepare for voting.