request for comments definition

What Is a Request for Comments?

A request for comments (RFC) is the process by which organizations openly solicit feedback from the public or relevant stakeholders before finalizing a proposal or plan. The goal is to ensure that diverse interests and potential risks are fully considered, thereby improving both the quality and feasibility of the decision.

In the context of governance, “governance” refers to how a community or organization makes and implements decisions on critical matters. RFCs are commonly used before rule changes, fee adjustments, technical upgrades, or significant expenditures. Channels for RFCs can include official website announcements, community forums, online forms, or meetings. Unlike direct voting, RFCs emphasize open discussion and evidence gathering; votes are typically held after these discussions have concluded.

What Is the Difference Between an RFC and an RFC Draft?

An RFC is the process itself, while an RFC draft is the document used to facilitate this process. The RFC draft is usually a structured document outlining the background, current situation, proposed changes, and a list of issues for public feedback on each point.

In practice, regulators or platforms often publish an RFC draft before introducing new rules, inviting stakeholders to respond to each item. Web3 projects also release RFC drafts before major technical upgrades or rule changes in order to minimize miscommunication and streamline the process of tracking feedback and amendments.

Why Are RFCs Important in Web3 Governance?

RFCs are crucial in Web3 governance because decentralization relies on broad participation and consensus-building, and changes to technical or economic rules can have wide-reaching and long-lasting effects.

Take DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) as an example: these are community organizations managed collectively by token holders or contributors through on-chain or off-chain voting. Without first soliciting feedback through an RFC, changes to fund allocation, fee structures, or protocol parameters could have unintended side effects. Open discussions enable communities to identify risks early, provide data and alternative solutions, and establish legitimacy and transparency for subsequent voting and implementation.

As of 2024, many major DAOs follow a two-step process—first seeking comments, then proceeding to a vote—on significant proposals. This approach helps reduce procedural disputes and governance fragmentation.

How Does an RFC Work Within a DAO?

Within a DAO, RFCs typically combine community forums and voting tools. The process generally includes pre-discussion, drafting the RFC document, collecting feedback, making revisions, voting, and execution.

Step 1: Initiate a pre-discussion on the community forum. Members post about the issue and its anticipated impact to solicit initial views.

Step 2: Prepare the RFC draft. List background information, proposed changes, risks, and alternatives as separate items for targeted feedback.

Step 3: Gather feedback and revise the draft. Clearly present supporting evidence and data sources, address objections, and if necessary, conduct small-scale pilots or simulations.

Step 4: Conduct a temperature check or Snapshot vote. Snapshot is a widely-used off-chain voting tool that allows communities to gauge sentiment without incurring gas fees.

Step 5: Hold an official on-chain vote and execute the decision. Final resolutions and changes are implemented via smart contracts, which are programs that automatically enforce rules.

How Are RFCs Reflected in Ethereum’s EIP Process?

In Ethereum’s EIP (Ethereum Improvement Proposal) process, RFCs are present at every stage from submission to implementation. An EIP is a proposal describing changes to Ethereum’s protocol or application-layer standards.

Authors first submit their draft on GitHub, a collaborative development platform for code versioning. The community and client teams then discuss technical feasibility, risks, and implementation strategies in forums and repositories. After broad feedback is collected, the proposal is tested on testnets before client teams and core developers decide whether to merge it. Changes involving fee mechanisms or transaction formats often undergo extensive public commentary and multiple rounds of testing.

Where Can You Find RFCs in the Gate Community?

Within the Gate community, RFCs are usually found in the Announcement Center, community channels, and during voting events. Common topics include pre-launch rule explanations for new features, fee structure adjustments, and calls for feedback on community proposals.

When participating, always check Gate’s official announcement channels for source verification and deadlines to avoid phishing links. For changes affecting assets or trading mechanisms, it is recommended to reply with structured feedback—covering background, issues, suggestions, and anticipated impact—and follow up on subsequent updates and adoption notices.

How to Prepare for Participating in an RFC?

Participating in an RFC does not require a technical background but does call for thorough preparation and clear communication.

Step 1: Verify source authenticity. Confirm that the announcement comes from an official or trusted community channel by checking domain names, announcement numbers, and timeframes.

Step 2: Carefully read the RFC draft. Highlight key proposed changes and identify potentially affected users or scenarios.

Step 3: Organize supporting evidence and examples. Use data, process screenshots, or real user experiences to strengthen your suggestions.

Step 4: Submit via specified channels. Reply in forums, fill out feedback forms, or attach your perspective when voting on Snapshot.

Step 5: Keep records and follow up. Save links and timestamps to track updates and adoption status; provide further input if necessary.

What Are the Risks and Common Misunderstandings of RFCs?

An RFC is not a final decision but rather an “open discussion”; voting and implementation typically occur in later stages. A frequent misunderstanding is mistaking discussion outcomes as finalized decisions or overlooking dissenting opinions.

Key risks include:

1. Information security—be wary of fake forms and phishing links.
2. Fund safety—some participation may require connecting wallets or signing transactions; always verify permissions and sources.
3. Incentive manipulation—RFC events with rewards can lead to vote manipulation or biased positions; be mindful of the organization’s anti-abuse measures.

How Do You Assess the Effectiveness of an RFC?

Effective RFCs typically have a clear scope and timeframe, well-defined feedback channels and adoption mechanisms, as well as transparent updates explaining decisions after closure.

Credible sources, specific problem descriptions, comprehensive data disclosure, and risk transparency all contribute to high-quality discussions. If organizers explain why certain suggestions were not adopted and provide alternatives or next steps, participants can better evaluate governance transparency and accountability.

Key Takeaways About RFCs

RFCs make pre-decision discussions public to minimize risk and enhance execution quality by actively engaging stakeholders. In Web3 governance—from DAOs to Ethereum—they play a central role in protocol development and rule adjustments within exchange communities. To maximize your impact: verify credible sources, structure your feedback clearly, monitor adoption status, and remain vigilant about fund security when signing transactions or interacting with proposals.

FAQ

What is the concrete difference between an RFC process and an RFC draft in practice?

The RFC refers to the entire feedback process; the RFC draft is the specific document used in that process. Simply put: the draft acts as a working version for community comments or votes. The former is an action; the latter is its medium—they are closely related but focus on different aspects.

How can newcomers participate efficiently in an RFC process?

Start by understanding the context: read the summary and goals of the RFC draft. Then provide specific feedback—avoid vague comments by pinpointing areas for improvement or potential issues. Finally, stay engaged with follow-up discussions; monitor official responses and subsequent changes so your input can have real impact.

Why are some suggestions from RFCs not adopted in the end?

The purpose of an RFC is collective wisdom gathering—not every suggestion can be accepted. Key reasons for rejection include misalignment with project goals, technical infeasibility, or low support from stakeholders. A transparent decision-making process is crucial—good governance will explain why certain suggestions were accepted or declined.

How do you evaluate the quality of an RFC draft?

A good RFC draft should clearly state problem background, proposed content, and potential impact. Check whether objectives are explicit, proposed changes are specific/measurable, backward compatibility is considered, and if the feedback window is reasonable. Drafts that are vague or rushed are usually lower quality.

What should I do if my feedback is ignored?

First verify whether your input was recorded (by reviewing official discussion logs). If it was logged but not adopted, you can request the rationale behind that decision. If it was truly overlooked, express your view during community governance votes or raise it again in future iterations—consistent, rational engagement tends to be more influential than a single comment.