diff --git a/text/0090-configurable-delegation-limits.md b/text/0090-configurable-delegation-limits.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8c47c2a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/text/0090-configurable-delegation-limits.md
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+# Configurable minimum/maximum delegation limits
+
+## Summary
+
+[summary]: #summary
+
+CEP PR: [casper-network/ceps#90](https://github.com/casper-network/ceps/pull/90)
+
+We propose giving validators the ability to configure a minimum and maximum delegation amount which would then be enforced for their delegators.
+
+## Motivation
+
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+The chainspec already includes a global `minimum_delegation_amount` option, but adding validator-level limits would enable operators to more efficiently manage their delegators.
+
+## Guide-level explanation
+
+[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation
+
+The auction contract already gives validators the ability to configure their bid by specifying a `delegation_rate` as an argument of the `add_bid` entry point.
+
+Our proposal would follow a similar pattern and add two optional arguments to `add_bid`:
+
+- `minimum_delegation_amount`
+- `maximum_delegation_amount`
+
+Since the arguments are optional, in case the user does not specify a value we'll use global limits as defaults. This requires adding a new chainspec option - `maximum_delegation_amount`.
+
+Delegation limits would be used to validate new delegation requests in the `delegate` entry point of the auction contract.
+
+As part of setting the limits we'd also forcibly unstake existing delegators whose bids are outside the specified range.
+
+## Reference-level explanation
+
+[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation
+
+### Chainspec update
+
+To make sure delegation limits are always available as part of `ValidatorBid` we need to add a `maximum_delegation_amount` chainspec option and update related structs (`EngineConfig` and `CoreConfig`).
+This would set a global maximum as a conterpart to the already existing `minimum_delegation_amount`.
+
+### Extending `ValidatorBid` struct
+
+To enable delegations validation `ValidatorBid` would be modified to include `minimum_delegation_amount` and `maximum_delegation_amount` fields. Those fields would be non-optional to avoid adding conditional logic whenever delegation limits are handled. If a user does not provide any custom values when placing a bid, global chainspec limits would be used as defaults.
+
+This change would also require implementing a data migration, to transform existing bids to a new format.
+
+### Adding optional runtime args to `add_bid`
+
+`add_bid` entry point of the auction contract would be modified to include additional runtime arguments - `minimum_delegation_amount` and `maximum_delegation_amount`. Both of those are intended to be optional, so if a validator doesn't want to set their own limits they will be able to pass `null` values in the contract call. In this case global limits will be used as defaults.
+
+New arguments would be validated to be compliant with global limits. This also requires adding a new `Error` variant to indicate incorrect settings.
+
+### Forced undelegation
+
+To enforce newly configured limits on existing delegators we'd implement a process of forced undelegation of delegator bids violating delegation limits.
+
+To avoid repeatedly fetching all `DelegatorBids` on each `add_bid` execution, this process would be run in bulk at the end of each era,
+after the block rewards have been distributed, but before the auction is run.
+
+The implementation itself would be broadly similar to what happens currently when a validator withdraws their bid using the `withdraw_bid` entry point 
+of the auction contract - we'd loop over all `ValidatorBids`, fetching all related `DelegatorBids` and validating their amounts. 
+If a given stake is outside the configured limits, it would be transferred to an `UnbondingPurse` and returned to the delegator's main purse after the unbonding delay.
+
+### Additional validation in `delegate`
+
+Actual enforcement of custom delegation limits would happen in auction contract's `delegate` entry point.
+
+Any new bids would be validated againsts a validator's configuration, similarly to how they are currently checked to comply with a global minimum amount.
+
+`ValidatorBid` is already being retrieved in the current implementation to validate that the specified validator actually exists, so changes would only include the validation and introduction of a new `Error` variant.
+
+Validation against the global limits would also be removed, since we can assume that a validator's custom configuration already respects those limits.
+
+## Drawbacks
+
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+This modification would force operators to keep track of their configuration settings when increasing/decreasing their stake and could potentialy lead to unintended misconfigurations.
+
+If we implement forced unstaking of delegators it would introduce a situation when a delegators bid is modified without their knowledge. Until now this could only happen during validator unbonding.
+
+## Rationale and alternatives
+
+[rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives
+
+An alternative to modifying the `add_bid` entrypoint would be to introduce a dedicated entry point which would be used to set configuration options for existing bids.
+
+This solution was discarded in part due to large functional overlap between both entry points 
+but also because introducing more granular entry points would lead to inefficient global state modifications.
+
+## Unresolved questions
+
+[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions
+
+### Forced undelegation
+
+Do we want to forcibly unstake delegators? An alternative would be to leave existing delegators as-is and only validate new delegation requests.
+
+### Staking rewards
+
+A delegator could go over the maximum delegation limit after receiving their staking rewards. In this case we can transfer rewards over the limit to their main purse or allow them to go over the limit similarly to the point above.
+
+## Future possibilities
+
+[future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities
+
+Future proposals to give validators more configuration options will probably follow a broadly similar pattern to this CEP.