diff --git a/proposals/3784-using-room-type-of-m.policy-for-policy-rooms.md b/proposals/3784-using-room-type-of-m.policy-for-policy-rooms.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..5c292e2d7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/proposals/3784-using-room-type-of-m.policy-for-policy-rooms.md
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+# MSC3784 Using room type of m.policy for policy rooms
+
+## Introduction
+
+This simple MSC aims to make it easier for machines and people alike to be made instantly aware if a 
+room is a policy list. To facilitate this this MSC recommends using the already established `type` 
+attribute to flag rooms as policy rooms. This builds upon the precedent set by Spaces and their 
+`"type": "m.space"`. Adopting this for Policy rooms allows all stakeholders to instantly know if its 
+a Policy room or not for rooms covered by this proposal. 
+
+For the purposes of this MSC policy lists can at times be called a policy room. This MSC does not intend 
+to change the name of the feature its just used to be very clear that we are talking about rooms with a 
+specific usecase. 
+
+## Proposal
+
+This proposal is well quite simple. Allow for Policy rooms to be marked as such using the 
+`"type": "m.policy"`. The precedent for this comes from Spaces where they introduced this system in a
+limited capacity. This proposal expands this system to help all stakeholders quickly identify 
+policy rooms in a machine compatible way that is computationally cheap. It has additional benefits like
+allowing clients that are capable of editing policy to display editing tools for policy rooms when they
+detect that a room is a policy room using this mechanic. For machine interaction with policy rooms this
+proposal supplies a very fast way to tell if a room is definitively supposed to be a policy room or if 
+the user might have supplied a legacy room or typed in the wrong room ID / alias depending on how things
+are configured. 
+
+Legacy rooms in this proposal are defined as all rooms that predate this proposal and they are free to upgrade
+if they desire to but they are also free to stay on their current room version and not upgrade their
+room to include a type event in the creation event. All stakeholders are expected to gracefully support 
+interacting with legacy rooms until a future proposal changes this recommendation. 
+
+The Author of this MSC believes that even with the problem of legacy rooms not being covered this MSC will
+be useful in the future with more use of policy rooms. 
+
+
+## Potential issues
+
+As is covered in the proposal section this MSC has the potential issue relating to Legacy rooms.
+The Author of this MSC thinks its that its an acceptable trade-off. 
+
+
+## Alternatives
+
+The alternative of using Peeking over fed to try to figure out if a room is a policy list has been
+considered but considering that its currently considered at the time of writing to be a very in development
+technology its deemed wholly unsuited for this application. The system this proposal recommends is the same
+one that was used for spaces. Spaces have proven them self's in the real world and so has this system.
+
+## Security considerations
+
+None that the author is aware of at the time of writing due to the mostly informative nature of the data.
+Due to that no client should trust that just because it says m.policy it is indeed a policy room the security
+implications should be minimal.
+
+## Unstable prefix
+
+If you want to implement this MSC before its merged your free to use the unstable type of 
+`support.feline.policy.lists.msc.v1`. 
+
+After this MSC gets merged if a stakeholder has elected to remove its support for the unstable prefix if any
+support existed or support never existed revert to Legacy room behavior for rooms that used the unstable prefix.
+
+## Dependencies
+
+The Author is not aware of any unstable MSC dependencies for this MSC.