Bringing Back Conviction with Locking Period as Polkadot

A few months ago, someone requested a change to the conviction period.
I think this is not a good idea.
The Polkadot locking period seems more suitable for GLMR, while the one we are currently using is good for MOVR.

:point_right: I propose reverting to the previous parameters for GLMR as Polkadot, and maintaining the current ones for MOVR.

Please share your opinion… thanks.


hey Lord, I raised the same points a while ago, and they were reported internally. I believe that the lock period for Moonbeam should be increased, while it should remain as it is on Moonriver. A longer lock period likely helps the community counteract the influence of whales. If someone wants to vote with a significant amount with high conviction, then locking for an extended period shouldn’t deter them. given the current situation, it doesn’t seem to hinder them

1 Like

Agreed, how to get this approved can we put it on chain as we have open gov now?

you can definitely do that, but I think we need to take a little time to discuss this, allowing many to voice their opinions. It would be beneficial to get insights from other community members. we should also consider what lock period might be ideal for our chain. this is a crucial moment in our fight against whales. If a whale is willing to lock tokens for an extended period, then they shouldn’t be criticized simply for owning a large amount of tokens


Absolutely, my friend. Let’s have a discussion. :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:


Agreed and I think that is the general sentiment of the members of ChaosDAO as well. 32 days lock up for 6x conviction is a no-brainer. High conviction should come with higher lockups.


I would recommend that people check out Polkadot RFC #20 when it comes to conviction voting lockup durations.

If you change your current 6x conviction level from 32 days to hundreds of days you will cause issues for users who were not aware of this being an error.

You instead could take an approach similar to what Gav suggested in the RFC – there may be other ways around it but i would assume that people wouldn’t want hundreds of days suddenly added to their locks.


I see two options, either:

  1. Unlock all locks, at most people will get unlocked 32 days early given they vote max conviction before the block where this would be executed.

  2. Pause opengov for 32 days to naturally let all unlocks free and then implement the lockup time.

Yep has already been mentioned internally, and I agree that the conviction periods should be higher

I recommend s start with the conviction base x1 = 7 days (the unbond staking period)

Now just have to solve the problem of the current locks

If we can really have a 36 day period without a referendum, then we can apply at that time.

Or reset/unlock all the locks? And at the same proposal change/put the new conviction period

1 Like

At this stage pausing is not a big issue i guess, important run time upgrde can be done by the emergency council.

I totally agree with the return of a larger lock for higher levels of conviction.
Multiplying the weight of your GLMR by 6 should be a major decision, not a short-term commitment.


Hi, guys, just to understand if there’s any chance to apply for this?