---
# System prepended metadata

title: 2cents on Mina Reasearch's MIP upgrade

---

# 2cents on Mina Reasearch's MIP upgrade


#### Should the Risk Assessment affect decision-making thresholds, such as requiring higher participation for high-risk MIPs while allowing low-risk MIPs to pass with lower turnout

Risk assessment create a more responsive and robust governance process since it's ment for the community to act, delibarate and vote upon but in a techno optimistic perspective this hinders collectivism when drafted by "experts"

suggestions:
- As mentioned in greater scalability proposal, in the short-term period MIP facilitators assists MIP authors. This should be well defined as in how long do we think a short term will take to evaluate the efficiency of the current process(when a treasury is included, This helps to evaluate overly optimistic cost estimates, inadequate budget allocation, potential financial losses, or the risk of cost overruns.) and what's needed to shift to a longer term kind of processes
- Low-risk & High-risk MIPs are all the same and should all be treated as the same, sometimes what we call low-risk can escalate to a high-risk and impact the overall ecosystem

In case of Low-risk and High-risk, decision-making thresholds and parameters that can be applied can look like this:

**High-risk MIPs:**
* **Participation Threshold**: 60-70% of eligible voting participants to ensure a broad consensus.
* **Approval Quorum**: A supermajority, e.g., 66% or higher, as a buffer to mitigate risks.
* **Time for Deliberation**: Longer review period (e.g., 2-3 weeks) to allow comprehensive analysis and community feedback.
* **Additional Safeguards**: A re-evaluation mechanism could be triggered if participation falls below a specified threshold, I would also suggesst an escalation and cool-down period.

**Low-risk MIPs:**

* **Participation Threshold**: Lower threshold, e.g., 45-55% participation, reflecting that these proposals carry minimal risk.
* **Approval Quorum**: Simple majority (50% +1) to facilitate efficient decision-making.
* **Time for Deliberation**: Shorter review period (e.g., 1 week) to allow low-impact MIPs to pass more quickly.
* **Fast-Track Option**: Allow very low-risk proposals to be passed via fast-track procedures if there's near-unanimous support.

Thresholds and parameters above follow principles of efficiency and conservatism 


#### What do you think should be the key common principles for the MIP Facilitator and MIP Reviewer frameworks?

These principles allows the community to thrive

Facilitator and Reviewer roles, especially in the bootstrapping phase.
Gradually phase out this support as the community gains experience and confidence, promoting a decentralized, community-led governance structure.

#### Given the limited current capacity, do you agree with these proposals to initially bootstrap the process?

Rome wasn't built in one day ;)


#### Rather than reaching out to the pool of experts and asking all of them to review the MIP, should a subgroup of Reviewers be randomly assigned instead?

This may vary on the number of the reviewers, actions they can initiate and expertise on the subjected MIP


