Proposal Repeals Moratorium: Introduce a 3-Month Lockout Period After Successfully Passing Governance

Written by: Rabbi Jebediah (
Co-Author: SolidSnake (Terra Allies) (

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.

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  • it robs proposals in general of rigor and enforcability since they can be insta-repealed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!

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.

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!

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


Good prop. No meaningful progress can be made if every new proposal is instantly repealed. Having a grace period at least lets us judge how well the original prop is performing before deciding to can it entirely.


Great proposal and something like this is definitely needed. The 3 month time period seems fair to me. There is a real need for professionalism and this helps us move in the right direction.


Yeah, it would be really nice to not have such flip flop bullshit. Something like this makes it so people should really read props and attempt to understand them if they’re going to be apart of this ecosystem moving forward instead of the screeching moonbois who contribute absolutely nothing but cause the most noise.


I strongly support this idea. We need a more stable chain. This will help enable that.


I am as much as possible against this proposal.

This is a great idea that should be implemented. All the best.


It does remind me of the burn tax reduction proposal, which went up quite soon and caused a lot of arguing especially because some deemed it was -too- soon and that we lacked datas on how the burn tax affected the volume on-chain, and more recently of the proposal to repeal the 10983 prop, again so soon that 10983 had barely any time to take effect. (Hopefully, prop 11111 won’t pass, but that’s another discussion)

3 months seems a bit long to me, but it’s the best compromise there could be, as more is definitively too long, and less is already too short.
Whichever proposal is passed by a community vote, we should stick with this decision for a short while before allowing ourselves to step back, it would leave us time to properly assess the effects of a proposal

A yes for me, I hope that people would follow that guideline


Have you created a Twitter for all this circus? :joy:

I am against this proposal because any decision has the right to be reversed at any time if it doesn’t work out or if the community has changed their minds.


That makes no sense. Don’t you see what’s happening with governance right now? A proposal passes, then someone decides they don’t like it and puts up a repeal… and around and around we go. No sane organization or business would act like this. It’s pure insanity.

But whatever, you’re entitled to your opinion.

Shalom! :pray:


That’s why you read the prop and take governance seriously. If you’re against something like this you seem to just want to cast your vote without trying to understand what your investment is even going to and frankly, I am sick of people like you who take a back seat and let things go haywire and continue to do nothing but not offer solutions and bring up stupid arguments to make it seem like you’re intelligent or even contributing when you’re clearly not.

1 Like

if this prop pass, i can already see a new prop one week after, trying to repeal this one as a frist step to repeal an other one :laughing:
More seriously, i agree with this idea i would personally favor a 2 month grace period, since time moves very fast in the crypto world, but i would be fine with 3 month.

1 Like

Mostly it is the validators who have the power to vote, if it were the community voting 1:1 then the result of each proposal could vary.
People could take the decisions made more seriously.

I am not going to vote on a proposal that goes against what I am trying to defend. I am not in favor of any lockdown or anything that restricts the freedom of users and their assets. Just as I do not agree with the 21 days of blocking, which could be 3 like other blockchains

Rabbi must be having a boring hanuka?

This proposal from the same guy who not long ago launched 3 consecutive proposals all three because he would not accept the community saying NO thank you. And all 3 proposals trying to overturn proposals which had already been passed by the community (put the f#ing multi signatory wallet money into the community pool).

So what exactly makes you change your mind? Not long ago you laughed at me with the statement “only ever the latest proposal counts” and I will keep going until I get the result that I want even if it takes 1000 proposals?

Now you are wasting our time with this nonesense? Does this mean the original 1.2% burn tax is to be reinstated? Does this mean you are giving up your efforts to circumvent prior passes proposals and support that somebody finally put that money into the community pool?

Or is this prooosal of yours only to be applied to decisions which you support?
Thanks for the Xmas laughs, nearly shit my pants.


Let’s get this passed!


I do like consistency.
One question, though:
Is this a parameter change in Governance module or a gentlemans agreement.
In the latter case we already have precedent of such clauses not exactly being followed.

1 Like

If you haven’t noticed the house is on fire. Now isn’t the time to be stubborn.

And I can have a change of opinion just like anyone else. :man_shrugging:

Shalom! :pray:


I can definately see the upside of this proposal. However i do see some potential downside. What happends when some risk has been overlooked in the risk-assesment, the proposal has been implemented, and after implementation that risk surfaces, and hurts the chain…?

1 Like
  1. The community should be careful what they vote on.

  2. If the worst happens, it can still be repealed by validators quickly.

There’s no way to enforce the 3-month lockout via code, it’s more of a community guideline.

Shalom! :pray:

1 Like

Much needed! Agreed 3 month period feels a little long, but I think it is acceptable as long as there is another mechanism to quickly overturn a nefarious proposal. Are you suggesting since this is sort of a gentleman’s agreement, if a malicious proposal does somehow make it through, validators would simply vote again on alternate proposal? I want to make sure that part is clear for everyone.

1 Like