diff --git a/cadence/20220817-add-fields-to-existing-definitions.md b/cadence/20220817-add-fields-to-existing-definitions.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..972e4b50
--- /dev/null
+++ b/cadence/20220817-add-fields-to-existing-definitions.md
@@ -0,0 +1,136 @@
+---
+status: proposed
+flip: TBD
+authors: Deniz Mert Edincik (deniz@edincik.com), Austin Kline (austin@flowty.io)
+sponsor: Bastian Mueller (bastian.mueller@flowfoundation.org)
+updated: 2022-08-17
+---
+
+# FLIP: Allow adding new fields to existing types
+
+## Objective
+
+This proposed change will allow updating existing types (contracts) with new fields.
+
+## Motivation
+
+One major challenge in smart contract design in Cadence is the inability to add new fields to already deployed types.
+The lack of this functionality means that developers have to resort to brittle workarounds.
+For example, developers may choose to deploy entirely new contracts,
+that are essentially reprints of the original, except with the newly added fields.
+Developers may also choose to
+- Manually storing fields as dictionaries to accommodate future new fields
+- Manually storing new fields in a new, different contract
+- Manually storing new fields in storage
+
+Each of these workarounds come with their downsides.
+- New contracts lead to complex migrations for applications and sunsetting existing contracts.
+- Storing new data manually is brittle, and leads to harder-to-follow code and added complexity.
+- Factory patterns increase compute since objects must be built at runtime
+  and also lose the benefits of type-checking, since the underlying structure is not truly typed.
+
+## User Benefit
+
+Allowing developers to add new fields to existing types as they need them
+will make contract development more focused on the needs of the current version
+as opposed to undue complexity to take future plans into account.
+It will also allow more maintainable contract code with less complex logic when existing contracts get updated.
+
+## Design Proposal
+
+The [contract updatability checking](https://cadence-lang.org/docs/language/contract-updatability)
+is extended to allow new fields to be added to existing types,
+such as contracts, structs, resources, and attachments.
+These new fields must be optional.
+
+When the added field of an existing stored value is accessed, the result is `nil`.
+
+For example, assume the following struct type is currently deployed as part of a contract:
+
+```cadence
+access(all)
+struct Message {
+    access(all)
+    let content: String
+
+    init(content: String) {
+        self.content = content
+    }
+}
+```
+
+We can now add a new field to this struct:
+
+```cadence
+access(all)
+struct Message {
+    access(all)
+    let content: String
+
+    init(content: String) {
+        self.content = content
+    }
+
+    // An optional new field. Existing instances of Message will have timestamp set to nil when accessed
+    // unless they are set at a later date
+    access(all)
+    let timestamp: UInt64?
+}
+```
+
+### Limitations
+
+- This will not allow existing fields to be altered. That is, it is invalid to alter a field's type.
+- This will not allow new fields to be derived from existing ones.
+
+### Compatibility
+
+This should be backwards compatible
+
+### User Impact
+
+- Cadence developers will be able to modify their contract more to their needs
+  instead of over-designing with the first launch of their contract(s).
+- If new unforeseen features or fixes require new fields,
+  those additions can be kept in the original contract,
+  instead of being silo'd off into their own contract.
+
+## Prior Art
+
+N/A
+
+## Open Questions
+
+- Adding fields can only be allowed if it is not possible to re-add previously removed fields.
+
+  One option could be to allow keep allowing to remove existing fields,
+  but require them to be "tomb-stoned",
+  similar to how [FLIP 275](https://github.com/onflow/flips/issues/275) proposes
+  to allow removing existing type definitions.
+
+  For example, field declarations would need to be replaced by e.g. `#removedField(name)`.
+
+  However, how do we handle fields that were already previously removed,
+  but are still stored in the object?
+  We could clean up existing stored composite values and remove stored fields
+  that are not declared in the type.
+
+- A previous iteration of the proposal also proposed to allow adding non-optional fields,
+  by allowing the definition of the added field to provide a *default* value.
+
+  This could be useful for types for which an optional type unnecessarily complicates the type,
+  such as for simple types like `Bool`, `String`, `Int`, etc.
+
+  For example, the field added in the example above could be written instead as:
+
+  ```cadence
+  let timestamp: UInt64 = 0
+  ```
+
+  Support for default values could be restricted to just certain types (e.g. `Bool`, `String`, numbers),
+  and default value expressions could be restricted to just literals (e.g. `true`, `""`, `0`).
+  Further, value expressions could be extended to allow access to `self`,
+  and access expressions on it could be allowed.
+
+  The default value functionality would be similar to default values of
+  [resource destruction events](https://github.com/onflow/flips/blob/main/cadence/20230811-destructor-removal.md#destruction-events).