Gonka Community Fund
governance: успешенНужны правки

Bandwidth Limits

Bandwidth Limits

Мнение по proposal

AI-черновик

Что говорит ревью

This is a parameter-change proposal, not a funding-transfer request. The executable action is clear enough to identify one changed parameter, but the proposal text does not explain the problem, expected effects, stakeholder impact, monitoring, rollback plan, or accountable owner. I would not support allocating Community Fund or governance confidence to this as written; it needs revision before it can be evaluated as a responsible network-level parameter change.

  • The only strong evidence is the executable parameter delta; the proposal text itself is effectively empty.
  • No measurable outcome or monitoring plan is provided for a network-wide configuration change.
  • No accountable technical owner, relevant proof, or rollback path is supplied.
Открыть публичное ревью

Запрос

0 GNK

Ответственный

Protocol proposer gonka18lluv53n4h9z34qu20vxcvypgdkhsg6nn2cl2d; accountable delivery owner not explicitly provided.

Подано

12 нояб. 2025 г.

Что думает коммьюнити

AI opinion - стартовая позиция. Ответы ниже помогают другим понять согласие, возражения и готовность голосовать.

Согласен

0

Согласен с условиями

0

Не согласен

0

Нужно больше данных

0

Ваше мнение

Governance голосование закрыто

Protocol result/status: успешен. Здесь еще можно оставить публичный комментарий, но голосование уже не активно.

Отношение к AI opinion
Если голосовать сейчас
Посмотреть governance result

Все ответы

Ответов пока нет. Можно быть первым.

Proposal простыми словами

О чем это

Bandwidth Limits

Запрос

0 GNK

Ответственный

Protocol proposer gonka18lluv53n4h9z34qu20vxcvypgdkhsg6nn2cl2d; accountable delivery owner not explicitly provided.

Почему это важно

Not provided as a dedicated network-level value field. Source summary: Bandwidth Limits

Проблема

Not provided as a dedicated problem/bottleneck field. Source summary: Bandwidth Limits

Что должно быть сделано

  • Unstructured governance deliverable
Детали оценкиShow
Нужны правкиAI-черновик

Framework score v2

Простое ревью

This is a parameter-change proposal, not a funding-transfer request. The executable action is clear enough to identify one changed parameter, but the proposal text does not explain the problem, expected effects, stakeholder impact, monitoring, rollback plan, or accountable owner. I would not support allocating Community Fund or governance confidence to this as written; it needs revision before it can be evaluated as a responsible network-level parameter change.

Доказательства

высокие

Команда

провал

Блокеры

3

Почему такое мнение

  • The only strong evidence is the executable parameter delta; the proposal text itself is effectively empty.
  • No measurable outcome or monitoring plan is provided for a network-wide configuration change.
  • No accountable technical owner, relevant proof, or rollback path is supplied.

Пять публичных проверок

1/4

Ценность для сети

The changed parameter appears network-relevant because it modifies dynamic pricing configuration, but the proposal provides only the title/body 'Bandwidth Limits' and no problem statement, timing rationale, expected network benefit, or evidence that this value change addresses a real bottleneck.

1/4

Ясность плана

The executable parameter delta is identifiable, but the proposal does not state expected behavior changes, success metrics, baselines, targets, measurement method, acceptance checks, exclusions, or post-change verification. For a parameter change, the delta alone is not enough.

0/4

Доверие к команде

No accountable person, entity, technical owner, reporting path, capacity commitment, or relevant execution proof is provided for this exact parameter change. An on-chain proposer address is not enough accountability evidence.

3/4

Дисциплина финансирования

No direct coin transfer was detected, so the usual grant budget and tranche concerns are mostly not applicable. However, the proposal still consumes governance attention and changes live configuration without explaining opportunity cost or why this parameter value is justified.

0/4

Риски и stewardship

The proposal does not evaluate economic, operator, user, or security impacts; does not disclose conflicts; does not provide monitoring criteria; and does not describe rollback or mitigation if the parameter behaves badly.

Оценка команды

Team confidence is not established. The proposal has an on-chain proposer address, but no named owner, no proof of relevant parameter-analysis work, no disclosed capacity, and no accountability or escalation path.

Ответственный

провал

Only a proposer address is visible; no named accountable owner or entity is provided.

Релевантные доказательства

неясно

No evidence is supplied showing the proposer has previously analyzed or safely executed comparable pricing, bandwidth, or parameter changes.

Ресурсы и capacity

неясно

No time, resources, monitoring commitment, or implementation support is disclosed.

Accountability path

провал

No reporting cadence, post-change monitoring owner, contact path, or rollback escalation path is provided.

Условия

  • Identify a named accountable technical owner or sponsoring entity for the parameter change, monitoring, and rollback coordination.
  • Explain the bottleneck: what bandwidth/pricing behavior is failing today, who is affected, and why this change is needed now.
  • Provide expected effects of changing dynamic_pricing_params.grace_period_per_token_price from 0 to 100, including operator, user, economic, and security implications.

Блокирующие проблемы

  • Нет ответственного owner: A parameter change that affects network configuration needs a responsible technical owner or governance sponsor. This proposal provides only an on-chain proposer/action, not an accountable owner.
  • Нет измеримого результата: There is no baseline, target, measurement method, monitoring plan, or definition of success for the parameter change.
  • Ключевые утверждения не подтверждены: The proposal implies a bandwidth-limit improvement but supplies no analysis or evidence that changing grace_period_per_token_price from 0 to 100 will produce the intended outcome without unacceptable side effects.
Источники и доказательстваShow

governance 12

SUCCEEDED

https://gonkascan.com/network/proposals/12

Evidence used in the opinion

Governance diff params

Gonkascan returned diff_params for this governance proposal.

https://gonkascan.com/network/proposals/12

Governance executable messages

1 executable message; types: /inference.inference.MsgUpdateParams; actions: PARAMETER_CHANGE; no explicit coin amount detected

https://gonkascan.com/network/proposals/12

Gonkascan governance proposal

Canonical governance proposal source.

https://gonkascan.com/network/proposals/12

Governance retry lineage

Possible retry lineage: #10 passed -> #11 passed -> #12 passed.

https://gonkascan.com/network/proposals/12

Governance final tally

status: PROPOSAL_STATUS_PASSED; yes 257565; no 0; abstain 0; no-with-veto 0; leading: yes; quorum 0.334000000000000000; threshold 0.500000000000000000; veto 0.334000000000000000

https://gonkascan.com/network/proposals/12