This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 15, 2023. It is now read-only.
Tuning openGov parameters for Kusama (round 2) #6409
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Question: would the |
$1 is just too low imo
Spend limits need to be much lower as another line of defense for treasury funds
I agree with most of [PR 6416](#6416), however there were a few things that I think should change: - increase capacity of admin tracks while lowering the decision deposit - make confirmation periods for all spender tracks equal to the treasurer track. No reason why a big spend should take longer to confirm than a root call.
|
Adherence to a lot of PR 6416. Still think that:
|
Fixed `UNIT` to `UNITS`
merge v0.9.35
|
The CI pipeline was cancelled due to failure one of the required jobs. |
|
Outdated PR |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is in response to the changes requested in PR 6398 (closed to resynchronize fork).
I'm actually quite glad Gavin requested an analysis of the changes since I found some major flaws in my initial configuration. After a good risk analysis, I arrived at this configuration. I believe it's a good compromise for making things faster and a bit more affordable across the board. It also increases security by making enactment and confirmation periods longer in the more consequential tracks.
I hope these changes are found to be more robust, informed, and conscientious.