CIP-69: Proposal to not censor previously rejected proposals

Please don’t censor previously rejected proposals. There’s no shame in getting a proposal rejected @scottfits . We as an LLC (and potential governmental body! a city!) need a complete record of all of our activities. For transparency etc.

Recently there was a proposal to allocate $50k (or was it $30k? I have no way of checking) funds to the LLC’s bank account and also to fund a retreat on Parcel 0. It was rejected and is now nowhere to be found.

Also I didn’t know the next highest CIP number to choose since maybe 58-68 were already used and then deleted/censored? :wink:


I generally agree with the proposal. Though the next available number seemed to be 56. I’m not sure why jumping to 69 makes sense, when you could just have easily jumped to 420 and completed what one imagines was an attempt at a joke.

I agree with this too. Is there a way we can make CIPs stay up, even if they don’t make it to a vote? I think its good for transparency. It would actually be great if they could have a status attached. Like “removed by OP” or “proposal expired - no vote” or “proposed on snapshot [link here]”

1 Like

This was not removed because it was losing. It was removed because it did not follow the correct process/time requirements for passing a CIP.