# Decrease constitution parameter for GoldToken.increaseAllowance

**URL:** https://forum.celo.org/t/decrease-constitution-parameter-for-goldtoken-increaseallowance/9002
**Category:** Governance Proposals
**Tags:** technical, corecontracts
**Created:** [September 12, 2024, 1:36pm UTC](https://forum.celo.org/t/decrease-constitution-parameter-for-goldtoken-increaseallowance/9002 "2024-09-12T13:36:15Z")
**Posts on this page:** 2
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![m-chrzan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.celo.org/m-chrzan/32/7007_2.png) [@m-chrzan](https://forum.celo.org/u/m-chrzan)
#### Post date: [September 12, 2024, 1:36pm UTC](https://forum.celo.org/t/decrease-constitution-parameter-for-goldtoken-increaseallowance/9002/1 "2024-09-12T13:36:15Z")

</div>

# Stage: [FINAL]

* * *

Hi everyone.

We recently noticed that there is a mismatch between `constitution` parameters for `GoldToken.approve` and `GoldToken.increaseAllowance`. This is because the parameter was never explicitly set for `increaseAllowance`, so it reverts to the deafult for the GoldToken contract, which is 90%. There’s no reason for `increaseAllowance` to have a higher `constitution` than `approve`, as they are very similar in function, and if anything, `increaseAllowance` is the safer option.

I’m submitting a CGP draft to reduce the `increaseAllowance` parameter to 60%.

For more details, including an explanation of `constitution` parameters and details of the transaction in this proposal, see the [CGP](https://github.com/celo-org/governance/blob/main/CGPs/cgp-0149.md) on GitHub.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![demo](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.celo.org/demo/32/10067_2.png) [@demo](https://forum.celo.org/u/demo)
#### Post date: [January 3, 2025, 11:54am UTC](https://forum.celo.org/t/decrease-constitution-parameter-for-goldtoken-increaseallowance/9002/3 "2025-01-03T11:54:40Z")

</div>

I have a different opinion on that. My point of view is , FIRST WE VOTE, THEN WE DESIDE THE ELECTION METHOD. Or at least at the same time.

So IMO, for every proposal you should NOT vote just a YES or a NO but rather vote  
(YES/NO , Allowance\_percentage, min\_participation\_percentage ). For example vote this: (YES, 65%, 25%).

In order to define the Allowance\_percentage and the minimum\_participation\_percentage, the (mean or median) average of the numbers should define the final percentage number that will be used to extract the outcome.