Naming convention for RFCs and IPs

Reserve Ecosystem Formatting for RFC’s and IP’s


The purpose of this document is to outline an ideal formatting solution for all governors to follow when creating proposals in the forums and on-chain within the already established suggested Reserve governance flow.

Step 1 - RFC - Naming Scheme

The proposal that is created shall follow the naming scheme with a prefix “[RFC] ” followed by the title.

For example:

Step 2 - RFC transitions to IP - Naming Scheme

After the 3 day RFC time period, the governor shall close the poll. If < 25% in favor, do nothing(or bring convo back to Discord), otherwise rename the title with prefix “[IP] ” and bring on-chain.

For example:

Step 3 - Naming Scheme for On-Chain Polls

The on-chain proposal shall have the same title as the discussion in the forums and include the link to the forum discussion in the proposal description. A summary of the proposal shall be included in the description with Summary in bold followed by a newline and the rest of the text in normal font below.

For example:


This proposal unregisters old contracts no longer used in High Yield USD (Mainnet), and registers a new asset being introduced into the hyUSD basket.”


By taking a uniform approach to labelling the proposals both in the forum and in on-chain polls, we allow new and existing community members to understand and follow relevant discussion better, and decrease the barriers to participation. This should help to increase the percentage of RSR supply voting and help proposals reach quorum.

Shoutout to @0xTomSawyer for pouring our discussion into a coherent train of thought.


Hello everyone! Happy to support Reserve protocol. :grin:

Hi Raphael and Jose, I have a couple of questions regarding the governance flow diagram.

Is the IP phase the same as the voting snapshot delay?

What needs to happen on the forums to denote that a proposal is now in the IP phase and no longer in the RFC phase(is it simply the title name change and nothing more)?


As we discussed this on Telegram in the end, I want to point out our conclusion. Thanks for putting together a wonderful document. I updated the original post to reflect the changes we developed:

Naming convention with [RFC] and [IP] in the title to facilitate searching and identifying proposal.
Remove the [IP] review phase from StableLabs tentative flow. After a successful RFC poll, proposals move to on-chain polling on the Reserve app.

Further discussion: @Jose_StableLab proposes to have incremental numbering of IPs for each day.

[hyIP1], [hyIP2], [hyIP3] for the proposals of hyUSD
And for other projects [rgIP1], [rgIP2], [rgIP3], etc for rgUSD.

This would make referencing proposals very easy on Discord and in discussion. Main drawback is that searching for [IP] no longer yields all proposals across all DAOs. This could also be an advantage, because searching for [hyIP or [rgIP simply returns all IPs for the one DAO an RSR holder is interested in.

@rspa_StableLab proposes to adopt @Jose_StableLab scheme and suggests adding an IP tag to these proposals so users who want to see all IPs across all DAOs can filter by this tag.

1 Like