DRAFT: Introduction of a 90-day cooldown period for Price Change Proposals

Voting period:

7 days

Categories:

Social Proposal
Request for Action
Constitution Amendment

Abstract:

This proposal is to introduce a 90-day cooldown period for price changes and/or price adjustment proposals.

Rationale:

Given the recent price changes, it feels like the forum is being overwhelmed with proposals focused solely on pricing changes and/or adjustments. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) Looking back for the last year, around 45%* of voted on proposals have been related to price changes. This clearly points to an ongoing issue. With the latest adjustments now being implemented, it appears we’re set to continue this cycle of pricing proposals. This constant back-and-forth is not only unproductive but also harmful to public perception. At present, there’s no clear mechanism in place to prevent this from recurring indefinitely.

Details:

This proposal aims to introduce a 90-day cooldown period for any domain pricing proposals. During this cooldown period, a new pricing proposal may still be discussed but cannot be brought to a vote until the 90 days have elapsed, the OP of the pricing proposal within the 90-day cooldown period must be open to community-driven pricing options for consideration. More info on this in ‘Specification

Exceptions to this rule may be granted in emergency situations, such as critical bugs, security vulnerabilities, or significant economic disruptions where an emergency vote could be initiated to override the cooldown restrictions.

Specification:

Proposal Frequency Restriction

  • Domain price change proposals may be submitted and discussed at any time, but no such proposal may be put to a vote more than once every 90 days.
    The first individual to initiate a direct price change proposal within a cooldown cycle must include multiple community-driven pricing options for consideration. These options must be clearly presented within the proposal thread and accompanied by well-reasoned justifications, including due diligence on how each option aligns with the long-term interests of the project.
  • Once a domain pricing proposal is voted on, a 90-day cooldown period begins, during which no other pricing proposals may proceed to a vote.
  • Proposals submitted during this cooldown period will be open for community discussion only and must wait until the cooldown has ended before being eligible for a vote.
  • This restriction helps ensure stability and gives the community time to evaluate the effects of prior changes before considering new ones.
  • If this proposal passes, the DAO may not propose to revert or modify this policy unless it qualifies under the ‘Emergency Exemption Clause’, which allows for expedited action in response to critical bugs, security risks, or significant economic disruptions.

SoG Responsibility

  • The Steward of Governance will be responsible for:
    • Including the 90-day cooldown with a end-date on price change proposals in the confirmation post after voting has concluded.

Emergency Exemption Clause

  • In the event of urgent and significant circumstances, such as:

    • Critical bugs
    • Security vulnerabilities
    • Major economic disruptions (e.g., XTZ raises 100%+ in a month of time or severe IRL Global issues such as a Pandemic that is likely to cause economic disruption)
  • An Emergency Price Change Proposal may be submitted inside the standard cooldown cycle.

  • These must be explicitly marked as emergency proposals and require:

    • Justification of the emergency.
    • A separate emergency vote to determine whether the timing restriction should be temporarily lifted.
  • Core Team introduces changes surrounding how payments are processed and/or how domains are purchased/registered

  • Core Team still reserve the right to change the pricing without having to go through proposal procedure as specified in accepted by voting proposal P-013 ‘Price Structure Future Proofing’ (This has it’s own disclaimer that “all delegates reserve the right to put in a 7 day proposal designed to block the change via simple majority”)

Transparency and Logging

  • All accepted and rejected price proposals, including emergency votes and justifications, must be publicly logged on the forum for transparency.
  • Spamming different price change proposals inside of the given 90-day cooldown may lead to a warning and possible bans on user accounts as set out in the Forums Code of Conduct

Benefits

Stability and Predictability

  • A cooldown prevents rapid-fire changes that could destabilize the ecosystem.
  • Domain owners and participants can make informed decisions without the fear of sudden price shifts.

Improved Proposal Quality

  • Knowing that price changes are limited encourages proposers to be more thoughtful and thorough.
  • Less frequent proposals mean more time for research, modeling, and community feedback before submission.

Reduces Governance Fatigue

  • Constant voting can burn out community members.
  • A 90-day buffer gives contributors time to focus on other areas and avoid “proposal fatigue.”

Time to Measure Impact

  • Each pricing change needs time to take effect and be evaluated.
  • A 90-day window allows the community to observe real-world outcomes before debating further adjustments.

Supports Long-Term Thinking

  • Moves the DAO culture away from reactive governance and toward strategic, long-term planning.
  • Encourages alignment with ecosystem growth rather than short-term trends or hype.

Flexibility in Emergencies

  • With an emergency clause in place, the system remains responsive to critical threats or major events, without compromising the cooldown principle.

Reduced Community Anxiety and Uncertainty

  • Frequent or unpredictable price change proposals can create a sense of instability or FOMO in the community.
  • Community members can plan ahead with confidence, knowing that price discussions won’t suddenly escalate into votes or changes without notice.
  • This kind of governance pacing builds trust and emotional resilience within the ecosystem, especially for newer participants.

Implementation

  • (If accepted): Regardless of the outcome of Proposal P-024, any new Price Change Proposal submitted to the forum that concludes after the vote on this proposal will not be eligible for voting until 90 days have passed from the date this proposal is accepted.
  • This will be introduced to the Proposal Process Rules

Timeline

DRAFT (26/05/2025 - 02/06/2025) 7 days
Vote Period (02/06/2025 - 09/06/2025) 7 days
Outcome (09/06/2025)

This is the second time you’ve removed my reply from this very Draft, a Draft you authored, which formalizes structural control over governance pacing under your role as Steward.

My critique is not abstract. It is about specific provisions in your proposal that violate core DAO principles and create a conflict of interest

The DAO has the right to reconsider, revise, or reverse its policies, whether in response to emergencies or not. That is literally the function of a DAO: we debate, we evaluate data, we reflect community sentiment, and if warranted, we change course.

Proposals are not immutable. They are open to challenge, correction, or continuation, and no steward, committee, or procedural buffer should preemptively restrict that right in the name of “proposal fatigue.”

What’s being framed here as “back-and-forth” is in fact a legitimate governance process: the community revisited a decision after its effects were observed. That’s exactly what should happen in a responsive, self-correcting system.

This new concern about “too many price proposals” only appeared after support began to grow for restoring the original 1ꜩ price. The community was organically aligning, and only after that became visible did a small number of high-vote participants intervene to shut it down. That pattern of moving the goalposts from “wait until the change is implemented” to “now you must wait 90 more days” shows the real intent: not process reform, but process insulation.

This isn’t a strategic rule to improve governance. It’s a retroactive justification designed to suppress a specific outcome that certain participants oppose.

The DAO does not need to justify its desire to revisit policy. That is its prerogative. If the community has the will to adjust course, it should not be restrained by ad hoc procedural constraints invented mid-debate.

Section-by-Section Breakdown of Violations

1. Cooldown Enforcement Power

“After a price change proposal concludes… a cooldown period will begin in which no other proposals will be accepted.”

  • No neutral enforcement mechanism is defined. The Steward, you, eould become the sole enforcer of when a cooldown is “active.”
  • This breaks neutral facilitation. The enforcer of governance pacing should not be the same person framing or moderating discussion.

2. Emergency Exemption Clause

“Exceptions to the cooldown period can be granted in cases of emergency…”

  • There are no criteria, definitions, or DAO-wide processes for deciding what qualifies as an emergency. This puts the decision FULL in your hands.
  • This violates decentralization and creates a central point of judgment, with no checks or accountability.

3. Forum Moderation and Thread Authority

You’ve already demonstrated, in practice, that you will delete replies from governance proposal threads that you authored — including mine.

  • You are using forum rules (which you authored and which were never ratified by the DAO) to remove structural criticism of a proposal that directly enhances your own role.
  • This breaks open participation, process legitimacy, and introduces a conflict of interest by combining moderator power with proposal benefit.

4. Framing via Subjective Thresholds

“We need to protect against proposal fatigue.”

  • This is a subjective framing. No DAO-approved thresholds or metrics for “fatigue,” “spam,” or “volume” have been proposed or voted on.
  • This substitutes personal judgment for community consensus, undermining transparency and opening the door to arbitrary censorship.

Recap

You claim this proposal protects governance. In practice, it protects you by:

  • Giving you the ability to define and enforce cooldowns
  • Giving you discretion over “emergency” exemptions
  • Allowing you to moderate and delete dissent directly from governance threads
  • Positioning you as both participant and arbiter of what the DAO is allowed to discuss

If this reply is removed too, it will only prove the point:

This is not stewardship. This is control.

It wasn’t critique, it was rude, un-hinged and not a place for the forum.

The forum code of conduct wasn’t even written by myself. I was just following the code of conduct of the forum, apologies if you feel like I’m doing it for some type of gain, this isnt the case.

Yes this is true, however, you cannot keep trying to revert all changes you disagree with. The proposal adds time constraints to 1 particular proposal type, not all of them. Unfortunately, you haven’t been doing much debating, nor providing data or facts to proposals, it’s been more like emotionally fueled conversation that isn’t at all constructive.

As you mentioned Kevin, ‘we debate, evaluate data, we reflect community sentiment and if warranted, we change course’ - This is exactly what is going on here, the reasons are valid enough to bring to a proposal.

Kevin, I’m honestly not sure what point you’re trying to make. Based on your logic, if the “Removal and Replacement of the Steward of Governance to Strengthen DAO Integrity” proposal were accepted and I was voted out, what would prevent me, or anyone else from immediately submitting a counter-proposal to reverse it?

Without the process improvements I’ve already made (which is allowed & in the job description) along with this proposal, this kind of back-and-forth could become endless. Even with the changes AND this proposal, it’s still possible, but at least now there are time-based limits in place to give decisions room to take effect before being challenged again.

Again like you said, ‘we debate, evaluate data, we reflect community sentiment and if warranted, we change course’ - not ah’ lets put in a counter proposal because my vote got rejected.