---
# System prepended metadata

title: 'MIP4c2: Amending MIP0 and MIP4'

---

---
Title: MIP0, MIP2, MIP4 Amendments
Tags: Amendments
---

# MIP4c2: Amending MIP0 and MIP4

## Preamble

```
MIP4c2-SP#: #
MIP to be amended: MIP0, MIP4
Author(s): @blimpa
Contributors:
Tags: template
Status: RFC
Date of Amendment Submission: <yyyy-mm-dd>
Date of ratification: <yyyy-mm-dd>
```

## Specification

### Motivation

The foundational MIP0 defines the formal aspects of the MIP Framework, including the lengths of the Feedback and Frozen Periods for all subsequent MIPs, namely three months for the former, one month for the latter.

The reason that the actual period lengths that we are currently using differ from those set down in MIP0 is that these are currently being overriden by those set down in MIP2, more specifically in MIP2c2, namely one month for the Feedback Period and one week for the Frozen Period.

MIP2 establishes that it will be marked as obsolete and defer to MIP0 once a list of conditions (defined in MIP1) have been met. These conditions are the achievement of milestones such as having set up a core governance framework, a Dai stabilization cycle, vote delegation, etc. Since there is no clear criteria to assess when/if these milestones have been achieved nor any indication as to who is to do the assessing, MIP2 may never be marked as obsolete. (Arguably, most of these milestones have already been achieved anyway.)

I'm proposing this bundle of subproposals [list which] to:

- Amend MIP0 to use the same period lengths as MIP2, which have proved to work well
    - (We struggle to get feedback on proposals after about one week from their being posted on the forum.)
- Remove MIP1
- Remove MIP2, deferring to MIP0

There is no procedural consequence in the accepting of this bundle.

### Amended MIPs and Components

- MIP0

### Amendment Pull Request

- A link to the PR containing the amendment.

### Relevant Information

- Links to evidence further backing the motivation.
