# Towards a revised Oxford proposal

**URL:** https://forum.tezosagora.org/t/towards-a-revised-oxford-proposal/5808
**Category:** Research and Development
**Created:** [October 13, 2023, 4:31pm UTC](https://forum.tezosagora.org/t/towards-a-revised-oxford-proposal/5808 "2023-10-13T16:31:48Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 7

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![TezoSpanish](https://forum.tezosagora.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/a5b964/32.png) [@TezoSpanish](https://forum.tezosagora.org/u/TezoSpanish)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2023, 10:30am UTC](https://forum.tezosagora.org/t/towards-a-revised-oxford-proposal/5808/7 "2023-10-16T10:30:00Z")

</div>

> [@simonmcl](#):
>
> A lot more didn’t vote during this phase at all

Quorum was met.

> [@simonmcl](#):
>
> A lot of bakers voted No

And a lot yay, \>50%, for being specific: that means that the proposal is good in general terms but it needs to be rethinked a bit to achieve supermajority.

> [@simonmcl](#):
>
> The code for AI will be inside the new protocol, but it will be impossible for it to be activated. A later proposal will re-enable the ability to activate it, after more discussions/plans/debate etc on its design take place

I really do not understand the purpouse of including Adaptative Issuance on “Oxford 2”, considering it will be impossible to activate it. Why not try to incorporate as much requirements as possible from the bakers feddback that voted no, and trying again with the new revised proposal? For example, including a proposal with a % staking more attractive for bakers like [Oxlo](https://forum.tezosagora.org/t/oxlo-proxlo49p/5592/3) and with all the technical bugs solved.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.tezosagora.org/t/towards-a-revised-oxford-proposal/5808)._