# \[ARFC\] A Framework To Avoid Quorum Failure **URL:** \ **Category:** Governance\ **Created:** [December 18, 2022, 6:35pm UTC](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-a-framework-to-avoid-quorum-failure/11058 "2022-12-18T18:35:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 4
**Author:** ![fig](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/governance.aave.com/fig/32/7063_2.png) [@fig](https://governance.aave.com/u/fig)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2022, 5:25pm UTC](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-a-framework-to-avoid-quorum-failure/11058/4 "2022-12-19T17:25:23Z")
Hey guys @bgdlabs @MatthewGraham - thanks for the input. We agree that solutions come from the behaviors of delegates themselves, but also want to find frameworks to encourage more participation + attract new, diverse delegates as well. This statement is true: > [@MatthewGraham](#): > > For example, normally voting participation is coordinated with someone following up with various voting entities to ensure participation. With respect to the SD, MaticX, LDO and stMATIC rewards proposal, there was no such voter coordination effort and the vote narrowly failed. When resubmitted, there was an effort made to coordinate voter participation and the vote passed. Education and lobbying will help the likelihood of a vote passing - however, this still places trust and responsibility on vote proposers, potentially deterring less well-connected token-holders. In the meantime - we are happy to visualize your request for top 100 voting participation. I would remind both - this is an informal proposal, hoping to spur discussions on the best way to empower more voters and new delegates. We agree a fundamental responsibility of delegates is to monitor the community and forum closely, but we believe delegates should also spend time making the governance process more efficient. Thus our motivation for kicking off this discussion. --- _[View the full topic](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-a-framework-to-avoid-quorum-failure/11058)._