---
LEAP: <to be assigned>
title: <LEAP title>
status: Draft
author: <a list of the author's or authors' name(s) and/or username(s), or name(s) and email(s), e.g. (use with the parentheses or triangular brackets): FirstName LastName (@GitHubUsername), FirstName LastName <[email protected]>, FirstName (@GitHubUsername) and GitHubUsername (@GitHubUsername)>
created: <date created on, in ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) format>
requires (*optional): <LEAP number(s)>
---
This is the suggested template for new LEAP. Note that a LEAP number will be assigned by an editor. When opening a pull request to submit your LEAP, please use an abbreviated title in the filename, leap-draft_title_abbrev.md. The title should be 44 characters or less.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Simply describe the outcome the proposed change intends to achieve. This should be non-technical and accessible to a casual community member.
A short (~200 word) description of the proposed change, the abstract should clearly describe the proposed change. This is what will be done if the LEAP is implemented, not why it should be done or how it will be done. If the LEAP proposes deploying a new contract, write, "we propose to deploy a new contract that will do x".
This is the problem statement. This is the why of the LEAP. It should clearly explain why the current state of the protocol is inadequate. It is critical that you explain why the change is needed, if the LEAP proposes changing how something is calculated, you must address why the current calculation is innaccurate or wrong. This is not the place to describe how the LEAP will address the issue!
This is a high level overview of how the LEAP will solve the problem. The overview should clearly describe how the new feature will be implemented.
This is where you explain the reasoning behind how you propose to solve the problem. Why did you propose to implement the change in this way, what were the considerations and trade-offs. The rationale fleshes out what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work. The rationale may also provide evidence of consensus within the community, and should discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion.
The technical specification should outline the public API of the changes proposed. That is, changes to any of the interfaces Lyra currently exposes or the creations of new ones.
Test cases for an implementation are mandatory for LEAPs but can be included with the implementation.
Please list all values configurable under this implementation.
Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.