CIP-0127: FA and SV locking implementation

Hi all,

Thanks to Simon and Jonathan for the detailed work. I have one suggestion on the provisional FA lock flow, since this CIP is where the automation promised in CIP-0116 §2.2 lands. It follows the same logic as the transfer discussion above: locking should not tie up more capital than the network's security actually needs.

Today the review queue is ordered by when assets were pre-positioned, and the provisional lock makes that pre-positioning the entry ticket to review. For independent builders and small teams this means 5M CC sitting idle for the full length of an open-ended review, or borrowing it from a staking app and paying for it with no certainty of approval. In practice many of them give up before applying, and the network loses exactly the long tail of apps it wants.

Proposal: require the full FA lock after the review is complete, not before it.

1. Review queue ordered by application time, not by pre-positioning time.
2. To keep out spam applications, a provisional lock at the minimum lock amount (10k CC by default) is enough as a refundable entry deposit.
3. Once the app is approved, the provider gets a fixed window (for example 30 days, matching the transition window for existing FAs) to create the full lock.
4. The on-chain featuring vote stays gated on the full lock, exactly as CIP-0116 already requires, so the network's security guarantee is unchanged.

This keeps "skin in the game" where it matters, at the moment of featuring, while removing a capital barrier that only exists during review.

I raised this point earlier with the Foundation and wanted to bring it to the wider group here. Happy to join the call to discuss.

Best,
Abdulkadir Canpolat, The Hub

Hi Simon,

Thanks, this is helpful. To answer your question directly: 30 days.

I would place that window slightly differently though, so that it needs no on-chain change at all, not even to the underlock grace period:

1. The Tokenomics Committee reviews the app without requiring pre-positioned funds.
2. Once the review is passed, the app gets 30 days to provide the full lock before it goes to the governance vote.
3. No lock, no FA approval. The vote stays gated on the full lock, exactly as CIP-0116 §2.2 already requires.
4. If the 30 days expire without the lock, the application lapses and the app has to reapply. The reapplication is accepted only if it clearly explains the main reason the lock could not be provided the first time. Without that explanation, a second application is not accepted.

The difference from the grace period approach is that the FA right is never granted in an underlocked state. There is nothing to suspend or archive, and the 7 day underlock grace period can stay as it is for existing FAs, so SV rights owners do not have to accept looser enforcement in order to help new applicants. The only change is in the Foundation's review process.

The goal is twofold: open the door for builders who have strong ideas but not the budget to lock 5M CC up front, and at the same time protect the review teams from unnecessary workload. Rule 4 is there for the second part. An applicant gets one more chance and has to justify it, so reviews are not spent repeatedly on apps that cannot fund the lock.

If the group still prefers the grace period route, aligning it to 30 days works for us as well.

Best

Abdulkadir CANPOLAT
The Hub