-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 58
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
Treasurer Track Confirmation Period Duration Modification #20
Conversation
Update 0019-treasurer-track-confirmation-period-duration-modification.md
Updated RFC number to reflect PR number: 20
This RFC proposes a change to the duration of the confirmation period for the treasurer track from 3 hours to at least 48 hours. |
Given the new data we have on governance activity and social dynamics, I would actually propose a slightly deeper change:
The main idea is that below the period of 28 days (which is a watershed period given staking and proposal periods) we want to have a sub-linear factor to disincentivize actors from voting and running. At present you can vote with 66% of your voting power (say, on something which would massively disadvantage the network) and exit as stakers are only half-way through their unlock period. It is questionable if we would want funds with less than 28 days locking to be counted at all, but I do think there's an argument here in favour of democratic inclusivity at a cost of slightly weakened economic argument. The 0.1x, 0.2x, 0.3x for no lock, 7 days and 14 days locks represents an effort to find a middle ground here. |
@gavofyork Root currently has a 1 day confirmation period, are you implying increasing that 7 days as well? |
@gavofyork currently With regards to your comment above, would you also propose to apply those changed parameters to Kusama? For example, would a 7 day confirmation period for the Treasurer track on Kusama be too long when the decision period is 14 days? I really don't know the answer to this one, I just recall that previously there was a desire from the Kusama community/token holders to have OpenGov be a little bit faster than it's original implementation which caused a few decision periods to be reduced from 28 days to 14 days. I wonder if a similar sentiment will arise if the confirmation period was too long / conservative? Definitely agree with you in regards to being a bit more conservative on Polkadot. Thanks for clarifying RE: conviction locks, a few people in the community were wondering if increasing the locks on preexisting convicted funds was something that may happen. |
I guess I am :) |
Only talking about Polkadot here - basically just stick with the 28 day periods.
I think Polkadot would be fine at the current periods; let's not forget that it is the curves which are important more so than the period, which is really just a timeout.
👍 |
Created an issue to continue with this RFC: polkadot-fellows/runtimes#100 If someone wants, they could directly create a pull request with the parameter changes. |
Changes to Treasurer, Big Spender, Medium Spender and Small Spender Confirmation Periods as per: polkadot-fellows/RFCs#20
Changes to Treasurer, Big Spender, Medium Spender and Small Spender Confirmation Periods as per: polkadot-fellows/RFCs#20 I opted to not propose to remove the Big Spender track (it was part of the discussion on RFC 20) as I am not sure how it would affect referenda that are currently live on that Track. --------- Co-authored-by: Bastian Köcher <git@kchr.de> Co-authored-by: Bastian Köcher <info@kchr.de>
No description provided.