Written by: Rabbi Jebediah (https://twitter.com/RabbiJebediah)
Co-Author: SolidSnake (Terra Allies) (https://twitter.com/TerraAllies)
SUMMARY
This community guideline proposal attempts to introduce a 3-month moratorium to any potential repealment processes which seek to strike down props that have successfully passed governance via the Station. The aim here is to safeguard agreed-upon changes and community decisions by allowing proposals the time needed to enact whatever tasks they’re designed to accomplish.
MOTIVATION
One of the main problems plaguing governance is the flip-flopping on proposals - a prop can pass, then someone inevitably tries to repeal it only a week or two later! This happened (and is happening again) with the burn tax, as well as the recently-passed 10983 (and now the 11111 repeal attempt). Regardless of anyone’s personal thoughts on the aforementioned proposals, having them pass governance only to be followed by subsequent repeal attempts is a problem, and for multiple reasons:
- it allows individuals or groups with open short positions to try and repeal useful proposals
- it bloats an already inefficient process, and throws a wrench into the wheels of governance
- it confuses validators and forces them to re-examine already-passed props a second time
- it makes the whole LUNC community look bad, disorganized, and above all, very petty
- it allows anyone with a political angle to try and take down props which have passed
- it projects an air of immaturity that clings to the entire community, not just prop authors
- it incentivizes bad behavior and frivolous voting patterns (since quick repeals are possible)
- it opens up the chain to attacks from external bad actors who may seek to destabilize it
- it lets individuals farm personal notoriety/clout by going after highly contested proposals
- it stokes the fires of tribalism and infighting within the community itself (lack of stability)
- it robs proposals in general of rigor and enforcability since they can be insta-repealed
These are some of the main reasons why we need a protective “grace period” before repeals can be submitted! If a certain proposal has passed governance, then that de facto means the wider community supports it (whether having demonstrated that through direct votes as delegators, or passively through validators). Ergo, repeal attempts should not be proposed until a certain time-frame has been granted to the original proposal to accomplish its aim! This grace period is a must-have, because without it there’s nothing stopping multiple repeal attempts from being submitted the moment any proposal passes governance!
PROPOSAL
We propose that there be a 3-month “lockout period” on trying to repeal any proposal which successfully passed governance via the Station. This means that whatever passes needs to be left alone for at least 12 weeks, without any attempts to change it! We considered upping this lockout period to 6 months, but that seems a bit excessive (and 6 months in crypto is practically half an eternity). On the other hand, a 1-month lockout is simply too short to give a proposal any chance of running its due course. Therefore, having a 3-month moratorium on proposal repealment is, in our opinion, a solid middle ground. Note that all this applies only to proposals which have successfully passed governance - those that have not can continue to be re-submitted at will, and without any limitations.
JUSTIFICATION
If we can get a 3-month lockout period on repealment attempts then we can ensure that enough time has been given before attempting to make “yo-yo” changes. Crypto as a whole moves incredibly quickly, but having certain individuals or groups pushing repealment props for their own selfish interests reflects poorly on the entire community. We need to protect the will of the people by safeguarding the majority’s voice! This proposal isn’t strictly enforceable because there’s no way to program the Station to automatically shoot down repeal attempts, so it’s more of a community guideline that we’d all agree to observe. And if any author violates the 3-month lockout period then validators have justification to instantly NO WITH VETO such proposals. This can apply to anything from parameter changes (like burn-tax percentages), to spending proposals like project funding. Basically anything that passes governance would be off-limits to changes for at least 3 months!
CONCLUSION
There’s only so much that can be done to protect governance, and it’s up to all of us together to make sure it’s adequately safeguarded from exploitative practices. So please read through this prop thoroughly and understand what it’s trying to do. Once you’ve done so, consider leaving your thoughts and replies below. We believe what we’ve outlined here is a sensible approach to a problem that will continue to pop up until resolved. As always, we welcome comments and community feedback!
Signed by: Rabbi Jebediah, SolidSnake
Cosigners: Orko, Bilbo Baggins, Mr.Baboon