luxfi/rfc

mirror of https://github.com/luxfi/rfc.git synced 2026-10-30 15:19:55 +00:00

Files

T

zeekay 0699fcf75f SECURITY: replace laundered Morpheus content with original Lux RFC process

The previous README and RFC00 (merged via @roaidev's self-merged
PR #1 into luxfi/rfc) were a near-verbatim copy of MorpheusAI
governance docs with surface find-replace ("Morpheus"->"LUX",
"MOR"->"LUX", "MRC"->"RFC"). They contained:
- Foreign links to mor.software, MorpheusAIs/Docs, MorpheusAIs/MRC,
  MorpheusAIs/moragents, discord.gg/morpheusai
- Embedded asset URL pointing to a MorpheusAIs/MRC GitHub upload
- A self-referencing link to github.com/roaidev/docs (author's own
  fork), planted as the canonical "LRI list" source

Replaced with original Lux-authored content describing:
- The actual RFC vs LP distinction (RFC = cross-cutting; LP = protocol)
- Concrete lifecycle (Draft -> Review -> Pending -> In Progress ->
  Implemented / Withdrawn)
- Honest submission template that maps to Lux primitives (Quasar,
  Pulsar, M/F/Z-Chain) instead of foreign-project tokenomics
- Pointer to luxfi/lps as the canonical LRI registry

No tokenomics or weight-bidding framing carried over — that material
was Morpheus-specific governance and does not apply to Lux.

2026-05-05 16:26:23 -07:00

2.2 KiB

Raw Permalink Blame History

RFC 00: RFC Process

Status: Final Authors: Lux maintainers Affected LRIs: all (meta)

Summary

Defines how Lux RFCs are written, reviewed, and accepted. RFCs are the process for cross-cutting proposals; single-protocol changes belong in luxfi/lps.

Scope

File an RFC when a proposal:

Spans multiple LRIs (and so cannot be a single LP).
Defines an org-wide process (governance, contribution flow, security disclosure, asset-listing criteria).
Standardizes a cross-cutting interface that no single LP owns.

Otherwise: file an LP, file a PR, or open a Discussion.

Lifecycle

Stage	Meaning
Draft	PR opened with the RFC body.
Review	Maintainers iterate with the author.
Final	Accepted; implemented in the affected repos.
Withdrawn	Closed without acceptance.

A maintainer may merge to main at any stage to preserve the discussion. Status in the front-matter is authoritative. If maintainer feedback goes unaddressed for two weeks the RFC is Withdrawn and may not be re-submitted for 30 days.

Submitting

Copy this file as RFC<NN>.md with the next unused integer.
Open a PR titled RFC <NN>: <one-line summary>.
Cite prior art and external sources.
Keep scope narrow.

Template

# RFC <NN>: <Title>

**Status:** Draft
**Authors:** <names + handles>
**Affected LRIs:** <list>
**Created:** <YYYY-MM-DD>

## Summary
One paragraph.

## Motivation
What problem does this solve? Why an RFC and not an LP or PR?

## Specification
Concrete description. Diagrams, schemas, pseudocode where useful.

## Rationale and alternatives
Why this design? What was rejected?

## Dependencies
Other RFCs / LPs / implementation work that must land first.

## Security considerations
New attack surface? Threat model? Interaction with Quasar consensus,
Pulsar threshold signing, M-Chain MPC, F-Chain FHE, Z-Chain proofs?

## Backwards compatibility
What breaks? Migration path?

## Reference implementation
Links to draft code.

## References
Prior art, papers, related LPs/RFCs.

License

All RFCs are released under the project license. Submission implies agreement.

2.2 KiB Raw Permalink Blame History