A well known issue with Community DAO v0 was the effect of CKB price volatility on the USD value of milestone payments issued. In the worst case scenario, it would result in projects receiving significantly less than what was requested in the original proposal.
Given that the community recently voted in favour of v1.1 changes that will address such problems, I believe it is worth considering a dispensation for ongoing and future proposals occurring in the interim prior to the release of the v1.1 platform.
The dispensation is that the amount of CKB to be paid for milestone completion reflects the correct USD value intended in the original proposal, and is calculated at the time of milestone payment. I would be interested to hear the perspectives of the community and committee with regards to this.
2 Likes
Hi Neon,
The volatility issue is real, and it’s one of the major issues v1.1 wanna solve. As a member of the v1.1 proposal team, I’d like to share some thoughts on this, though the final decision rests with the committee and community.
On v1.1 status:
While v1.1 passed, it’s not yet operational. The steward team unformed, the platform unfinished. Under the 1.1 context, the USDI option technically depends on the full v1.1 infrastructure (two-tier treasury, stewards + community observer as multisig, etc.), so it might not be implemented in isolation.
On interim solutions:
If there’s interest in an interim arrangement before v1.1 launches (expected mid-Feb), it would need to:
- Operate within v1.0 rules framework
- Be transparent about who provides it and how
- Clarify risk allocation (who bears volatility risk)
From a technical perspective, such an arrangement might work as a service agreement between a third party and proposers to avoid v1.0 metarule adjustment, though details would need careful design.
Interested to hear others’ thoughts.
2 Likes
Thanks for your insights. My general thoughts are that we should continue to operate within the ruleset of v0 until v1.1 is ready to take over fully.
In terms of the practicalities, I would suggest that the committee evaluates requests in the interim on a case by case basis, where a >5% variance from the original dollar-equivalent disbursal amount entitles the respective project to initiate a request.
The risk of volatility is ultimately borne by the DAO due to its design which doesn’t take this factor into account, and which v1.1 serves to address.
I think what is needed is some input from the committee as to whether they can consider this interim measure.
2 Likes