Reading time saved: 5 minutes
10 replies, 475 views, 31 likes
RPIP-35, a proposal to switch from block-based to time-based Balance and RPL Price submissions, was implemented in the Houston upgrade without a formal vote, sparking debate over governance processes and the team's influence on protocol changes. The community is now invited to give final feedback on RPIP-35, which has reached the Review stage, amidst calls for improved communication and a more transparent and unified governance approach.
The discussion revolves around RPIP-35, which proposes a shift from block-based to time-based Balance and RPL Price submissions. The proposal was initially brought up by Langers1, but concerns were raised when Knoshua pointed out that the change had already been implemented in the Houston upgrade without a formal RPIP vote, leading to worries about a potential two-tier system for protocol changes2. The community has been actively discussing the governance process, the influence of the team on vote outcomes, and the importance of clear communication and procedural transparency. Recently, Langers announced that RPIP-35 has been moved to Review and is now in preparation for finalization, inviting community members to provide any last feedback10.
The community's reaction is varied. Some members, like Valdorff, argue that the proposal should be voted on by the pDAO and, if not ratified, should be removed from the Houston upgrade. They also acknowledge the perception of a two-tier system and call for improved communication and procedural enhancements3. Knoshua suggests that the proposal should be informational and highlights the need to tackle communication and procedural issues4. Langers, on behalf of the team, has apologized for any perception of a two-tier system and has pledged to work on a unified process with community input5. Despite these assurances, there are still concerns about the team's influence on the certainty of votes and the lack of transparency regarding features planned for the Houston upgrade6,7. Valdorff has also reviewed the proposal and found it to be solid11.
Community members are encouraged to provide any last feedback on RPIP-35 as it has been moved to Review and is being prepared for finalization10. If a vote on RPIP-35 has not yet taken place, it should be considered as a next step to formalize the change.
Posted 22 days ago
Last reply 3 days ago
Summary updated 2 days ago
Last updated 04/12 00:28