diff --git a/proposals/2704-mxc-duplication.md b/proposals/2704-mxc-duplication.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..dd4095dbfc8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/proposals/2704-mxc-duplication.md
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+# MSC2704: Handling duplicate media on `/upload` + clarifying the origin of an MXC URI
+
+Currently some servers will de-duplicate media in an unpredictable way whereas others will not.
+Further, some implementations have the capability to return a potentially unexpected origin for
+their MXC URIs. This proposal aims to acknowledge the status quo by specifying it explicitly.
+
+## Proposal
+
+MXC URIs can have an origin which does not match the server name on `/upload`. This is currently
+implied as potentially being possible under the specification, however this MSC aims to make that
+behaviour to be valid and expected by clients. This means, for example, that `@alice:example.org`
+could receive an MXC URI pointing to `mxc://cdn.upstream.com/abc123`. No changes are implied by the
+origin: it is to be looked up like any other domain name, just as it does today.
+
+Servers SHOULD NOT attempt to "deduplicate" media by returning the same MXC URI for previously
+uploaded content, unless the upload meets requirements outlined below. Uploads are often accompanied
+by a single reference in an event, and in a world where it is possible to delete media by event ID
+it is important to be able to delete a specific record without side effects. How the implementation
+handles this internally is up to it - it just cannot return the same MXC URI for what appears to
+be the same content.
+
+If the server wants to support deduplication, it should only do so when the media (body), uploader,
+origin homeserver, and provided filename all match. This scenario could be perceived as a missed
+request on the client side and therefore could be a retry.
+
+## Potential issues
+
+Enforcing that media cannot be deduplicated at the MXC URI level could lead to media ID exhaustion
+on the server side, however by explicitly allowing the server to return a different origin for the
+URI the pool of potential IDs is unbounded.
+
+By explicitly allowing the server to return a `content_uri` which does not match their server name
+the server could potentially imply that media was uploaded to a different server. For example, a user
+wishing to upload to `example.com` could be told that their media got uploaded to the public `matrix.org`
+homeserver instead. This is perceived by the proposal as a bad idea and needs no enforcement to prevent,
+as unless the server managed to gain access to `matrix.org` the media will safely 404.
+
+Implementations may have already deduplicated media such that one MXC URI does not reference one event,
+however the intent is to fix the problem going forward and less so resolve the past. Some clients also
+have "Forward" features which do not re-upload media, which would cause multiple events to reference
+the same media.
+
+## Alternatives
+
+We could not handle deduplication at the spec level, however this leaves implementations open to issues
+down the line when we do support deleting/erasing media.
+
+We could also not allow the returned `content_uri` to reference another server. The use case for allowing
+this specific behaviour is to allow media to be hosted by a dedicated CDN-like service instead of forcing
+all traffic through the homeserver.
+
+## Security considerations
+
+Some considerations are mentioned in the Potential Issues section.
+
+Though not mentioned in the specification, servers can already lie about the MXC URI being returned,
+such as always returning a reference to the same image regardless of what was uploaded. This is not
+solved by this proposal, and generally not perceived as a legitimate threat currently.
+
+## Unstable prefix
+
+No unstable prefixes are required for this MSC.