[Phase-2] HIP-70 Establish a Minimum Period for Phase 1

HIP: 70
title: Establish a Minimum Period for Phase 1
authors: @arkayana
status: Phase 2
created: 2022-09-27
languages: EN

Simple Summary

Establish if a minimum period is desired for proposals to remain phase 1.


In order to avoid simple misunderstandings of intent between the various parties of thought within PoH, a minimum period for an HIP to remain in phase 1 might be established.

Although this is a minor tweak, it will improve relations between individuals and groups, as well as overall confidence in the voting system.


A number of HIPs, including HIP-69, recieved recent criticism for being purposefully rushed through phase 1. This includes HIPs made by all opposing ‘sides’ in the protocol. This HIP will establish wether the DAO wishes for there to be a minimum period that a HIP must remain in phase 1 before passing to phase 2.


@0xjean.eth has agreed to co-author the Snapshot signalling poll to obtain DAO opinion, as I do not yet have permission. It will include the following question and items:

Question: What should the minimum period be for proposals to remain in phase 1, if any?

(1) No minimum (no change)
(2) 1 day (24 hours)
(3) 2 days (48 hours)
(4) 3 days (72 hours)
(5) 5 days (120 hours)
(6) 7 days (168 hours)


This period would allow a sufficient amount of time for uninformed community members to read, assess, disseminate and debate a HIP before passing to phase 2. This will improve the effeciency of phase 2 in turn, as members would come to it already informed and ready to make specification edits, rather than spend phase 2 on gaining awareness and initiating preliminary discussions.

It will also remove the air of suspicion regarding underhanded tactics pertaining to ‘fast-tracking’ proposals from either end of the ‘political spectrum’.

Phase 1 Discussion Keynotes

  • My proposal to also increase Phase 2 minimum term to 5 days.

  • A counter-proposal to require a minimum percentage of consensus in order for Phase 2 to pass, rather than increase Phase 2 term length.

  • Opinions on ‘rushed’ proposals

  • Over all there appears to be sufficient interest and discussion in the Telegram groups to bring this proposal to Phase 2, but there are some justifiable counter-arguments and alternative suggestions suitable to consider for both this, and future quality of life/quality of governance HIPs.

It remains my personal view is that 3 days (72 hours) would be an appropriate minimum, as it would be a sufficient amount of time to pass over a weekend.

7 dias como minimo propondria es mi opinion, basada en q es poco tiempo para resolver cuestiones importantes… pero es un buen minimo para que esas cuestiones importantes (ejemplo constitucion) sean por lo menos discutidas en los grupos de la comunidad, y tambien en el foro.

Today an HIP was rushed through its phase 1 in 3 hours. We need this ASAP.

A minimum of 7 days sound good to me.

Just to leave a trace of what’s real and what’s not, what Luis is saying is not real. He is talking about HIP-75 which started to be discussed in Phase 1 starting September 10 and was moved to phase 2 just yesterday (Oct 1) so there were 21 days of discussion which did happen on many channels.


It was a different thread (you just shared two different ones) and the copy submitted to Snapshot has nothing to do with the proposal in phase 1. One thing is to have it discussed, another completely different thing is not having the actual proposal that was taken to vote hidden for the view of the forum, only to reveal it just hours before it went to vote, shielding it from any possible amendments from the discussion forum.

There is enough interest I think to see this through. Could both forks get this implemented once they are ready?

1 Like

heyy! I believe that everything that is implemented before the actual fork will be implemented after ir, and then each side would need to ratify or not the changes.