Given that this seems to be a bug, I’m not sure this needs a governance response or an RPIP proposal. It “just” needs to be fixed. Would there be any lack of legitimacy in fixing the issue without it going through governance? Is there concern that the team won’t prioritize fixing this?
We are aware of this limitation but the additional changes required to implement a fix outweigh the concern in our opinion
Compare with the response in 5.11:
We are aware of this limitation but making this change now with an existing deployment outweighs the concern in our opinion.
It seems like the latter is the team saying that it’s not worth making the change “now with an existing deployment”, whereas the former seems to be a general outweigh. I am taking this at face value as the team stating that they do not believe this should be fixed. I disagree and think this is quite important.
To be honest, I believe the issue was raised in one of our first audits. We assessed and reassessed in this audit but felt that it would incur more risk to change than the benefit provided - it is an unlikely edge case with minimal impact.
We should have worded the response differently to make that clear.
@knoshua brought a misunderstanding to light here, which I think should totally derail this effort. In particular, it’s only some votes that are impacted (network balances, network prices, mev penalties and scrubbing of minipools). I agree with @knoshua’s assessment (and @kane has also confirmed now).
My current intention:
Abandon this vote effort, because it was based on a misunderstanding
Likely turn the RPIP into an Informational RPIP on this topic rather than an RPIP meant for voting on
If we do want to vote on the actual issue, it will be a new effort from scratch