FIP Lifecycle Management

A comprehensive framework for managing Filecoin Improvement Proposals through transparent, community-driven governance

The FIP Lifecycle Journey

1
Discussion
Community dialogue and initial exploration
2
FIP Draft
Formal proposal development
3
FIP Editors
Expert review and feedback
4
FIP Assigned
Official identification and tracking
5
Timelock
Deliberate review period
6
Veto Period
Technical & community oversight
7
Implementation
Final execution and deployment

Discussion Stage

This initial phase facilitates open dialogue within the community before formalizing any proposals. It encourages early collaboration, reduces redundancy, and increases alignment with community priorities.

Rationale: Encourages early collaboration, reducing redundancy and increasing alignment with community priorities.

FIP Draft

Formalizes ideas from discussions into structured proposals that clearly outline intent, implementation details, and anticipated impacts. This stage enhances proposal quality and readability.

Rationale: Enhances proposal quality and readability, setting clear expectations and standards.

FIP Editors Review

Subject matter experts or dedicated editors analyze drafts to provide critical and constructive feedback. This maintains high-quality proposals and reduces future complications.

Rationale: Maintains high-quality proposals, reducing future complications or ambiguities.

FIP Assigned

Formally assigns the FIP a unique identifier and places it in an official governance pipeline. This provides traceability, clarity, and structure to the lifecycle management.

Rationale: Provides traceability, clarity, and structure to the lifecycle management.

Timelock Period

Introduces a deliberate delay before implementation, allowing community and stakeholders sufficient time for comprehensive review. This prevents rash or inadequately vetted changes.

Rationale: Prevents rash or inadequately vetted changes, improving decision-making quality.

Veto Period: Technical Committee & Community Oversight

During the timelock period, two parallel veto mechanisms operate to ensure comprehensive oversight of proposals:

Technical Committee (Security Veto)

The Technical Committee holds veto power over proposals posing substantial network security risks, requiring supermajority consensus among committee members.

Scope: Network security, technical integrity, and stability concerns

Threshold: Supermajority consensus required

Community Veto

Enables community-driven rejection through an adaptive quorum model that prevents small, unrepresentative groups from blocking proposals.

Scope: Community concerns, governance issues, and ecosystem impact

Mechanism: Adaptive quorum with negative turnout bias

Adaptive Quorum with Negative Turnout Bias

This mechanism prevents small, unrepresentative groups from vetoing proposals by adjusting the required quorum based on turnout. Lower turnout requires higher consensus percentages, ensuring that significant opposition (rather than simple inactivity) is needed to stop proposals. This reduces voter fatigue and apathy while maintaining robust community oversight.

Rationale: Reduces voter fatigue and apathy, ensuring that significant opposition stops proposals while preventing small groups from blocking progress.

Implementation

Ensures alignment and understanding among implementers, followed by final execution and deployment. This secures efficient, coherent execution of proposals.

Rationale: Secures efficient, coherent execution of proposals, avoiding misinterpretation or misalignment.

Key Governance Principles

Transparency

All stages of the FIP process are open and visible to the community, ensuring accountability and trust.

Community-Driven

Decisions are made through community consensus, with multiple opportunities for input and feedback.

Security-First

Network security and stability take precedence, with dedicated oversight mechanisms in place.

Operational Excellence

Emphasis on moving things forward with clear goals, being agile and lean in our governance processes.

We Value Your Feedback

This framework is designed to empower robust governance, prioritizing clarity, transparency, and community agency. We warmly invite your feedback, suggestions, or concerns regarding any aspect of this lifecycle.