Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Gov proposal withdrawal by proposer #12417

Closed
4 tasks
hxrts opened this issue Jul 1, 2022 · 5 comments
Closed
4 tasks

Gov proposal withdrawal by proposer #12417

hxrts opened this issue Jul 1, 2022 · 5 comments

Comments

@hxrts
Copy link
Contributor

hxrts commented Jul 1, 2022

Summary

Add option for gov proposer to withdraw proposal, locking deposit for 1 additional unbonding period.

Problem Definition

We've seen in a number of instances there is need to deprecate a proposal after submission, once voting has begun, even after passage. The Cosmos Hub Stargate upgrade is a perfect example, where a bug was found in the release, requiring out of band coordination to cancel the upgrade and significant confusion among validators.

Proposal

In these instances it would be beneficial if the proposer could withdraw the proposal with some small cost. The cost is to prevent griefing or scenarios where plausible proposals are intentionally withdrawn to run out the clock. I propose locking the deposit for one additional bonding period, which would mean the same deposit can't be recycled immediately, and the proposer incurs increased opportunity cost. The obvious alternative is burning the deposit, which also seems acceptable, though potentially overly punitive (sometimes proposals are simply superseded due to new information).

  • Signalling, Param, Spend proposals should be withdraw-able up to the moment of passage, as well as generic message proposals.
  • Upgrade proposals should be withdraw-able up to the specified upgrade height.

For Admin Use

  • Not duplicate issue
  • Appropriate labels applied
  • Appropriate contributors tagged
  • Contributor assigned/self-assigned
@gsk967
Copy link
Contributor

gsk967 commented Jul 5, 2022

This is an open discussion regarding this feature

#11554

#11130

@hxrts
Copy link
Contributor Author

hxrts commented Jul 5, 2022

oh good catch. I think my proposal re additional deposit lock-up time is relevant to that convo. will link and close.

@robert-zaremba
Copy link
Collaborator

I think we can reopen this issue once we have a conclusion in the discussion

@hxrts
Copy link
Contributor Author

hxrts commented Jul 5, 2022

looks like #11554 is active. can use that issue

@alexanderbez
Copy link
Contributor

I think we can reopen this issue once we have a conclusion in the discussion

We already have an issue open that @gsk967 opened -- let's use that once an approach is solidified 👍

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants