关于对 “Community Fund DAO v1.1 Web5 优化提案” 重新投票的建议 | Recommendation for a Revote on the 'Community Fund DAO v1.1 Web5 Optimization Proposal

CKB Community Fund DAO
1

讲干货，不扯淡：

Metaforo 这个投票平台存在明显漏洞。 “MOD” 兄弟利用了平台机制漏洞，让以下两个地址：

  • ckb1qzda0cr08m85hc8jlnfp3zer7xulejywt49kt2rr0vthywaa50xwsq22vda73jzdlu3lf6luskzcjz7z5ksa58stp95p5

  • ckb1qzda0cr08m85hc8jlnfp3zer7xulejywt49kt2rr0vthywaa50xwsqwpcdzq3q7klvy9esgjlsy9vrapke97kgsqmwwrp

重复参与投票。

“物业”团队的执行不够专业：废话太多、细节没搞清楚，连最基本的投票正确性都没保证。细节决定成败，长点心吧。

结论：

我建议社区进行一次 全面重新投票，并修正规则：

投票完成后，Metaforo 必须保留投票所使用的 CKB 地址，不得手动删除，以便审计备查；否则，该票视为无效。

PS：
”MOD“兄弟，从你的回帖我看得出，你是真的希望 CKB 好。我们都是想让社区利益最大化的那类人，方式可能不一样。如果这次说话冲了点，还请见谅。

Cut to the chase, no fluff:

The Metaforo voting platform has a clear vulnerability. Our friend “MOD” exploited a platform loophole, allowing the following two addresses:

ckb1qzda0cr08m85hc8jlnfp3zer7xulejywt49kt2rr0vthywaa50xwsq22vda73jzdlu3lf6luskzcjz7z5ksa58stp95p5  
ckb1qzda0cr08m85hc8jlnfp3zer7xulejywt49kt2rr0vthywaa50xwsqwpcdzq3q7klvy9esgjlsy9vrapke97kgsqmwwrp

to vote twice.

The “property management” team has not handled this professionally: too much talk, not enough attention to detail, and you even missed the most basic voting integrity check. Details matter — please take this more seriously.

Conclusion:

I suggest the community conducts a full revote and updates the rules as follows:

After voting, Metaforo must retain all CKB addresses used in the vote. Deleting them should invalidate the corresponding vote, and all records must remain visible for later auditing.

P.S.:
@MOD, I can tell that your actions come from a genuine concern for CKB, and I fully respect that. We all want what’s best for the ecosystem, even if our methods or perspectives differ at times. If my earlier comments came across as a bit blunt, I hope you won’t take it personally. Let’s keep working together and push the CKB forward, side by side.

11 Likes
2

The discrepancy was identified a couple days ago and we shared with the Metaforo team who has not finished investigating. If this is the case it’s a simple fix, the proposal passes.

Really appreciate your diligence in bringing attention to this, especially in the last few days it has been hard to maintain accurate priorities amidst everything that’s happening.

8 Likes
3

This vote was truly remarkable.

If we genuinely hope for a proposal to pass, we can gain overwhelming support even without DAO Stewards, and even consider initiating a re-vote afterward.

The question is — what was the real key factor drove such exceptional participation?

I think it was because internal staff strongly supported this proposal, so they actively pushed for community voting. If this had been an external proposal, there wouldn’t have been so much enthusiasm.

4

Hi CDEX, as part of the proposal team, I, of course, wanted it to pass.

But I did my best to remain neutral and ensure the community was informed without being misleading, which could be seen as a rehearsal for the DAO steward.

For instance, one of the major “NO” voters mentioned that s/he only found out about the proposal in the final week through a WeChat brief I cooked. Although after our conversation and proposal adjustment, he canceled the no vote, but I believe this is proof of the necessity of good information distribution for high turnout.

image
image1920×1424 259 KB

Compared to previous voting, this also shows how broken our current information flow is. So, one key takeaway from v1.1 is that we desperately need a professional team or personas to ensure consistent and high-level information outreach across all proposals.

Thanks

5

我感觉立马开启重新投票是草率的，无论是投票系统的漏洞，还是被有意狙击，至少说明：1.他没有形成压倒性的优势 2.他没有让更多社区人参与进来，从而缩小单体投票权重。如果立马重启，会给DAO后期申请项目带个不好的示例。一个defi协议被盗，不会对黑客说：“先还我钱，等我打好补丁后你在来次”，一个DAO也应该类似。但也并非是说，一个好的项目如果要的资金太多或时机不成熟被否，然后就没有机会了。我感觉像这个DAO1.1提案，就可以尝试：1.等待时机，就像Metaforo上MOD所说的，现在生态缺少的是项目，DAO并不是现阶段最优先的步骤，工具做的再好没什么人来用， 更是一种浪费，可以等感觉到项目慢慢有多起来了，再来推进改变这块也不晚。2.通过其他途径推进，可以通过向基金会申请基建，先把社区投票便利性等软系统建设方面进行部分资助，等后期如需要，只需在DAO里投票修改提案和成立物业这部分即可。

2 Likes
6

This is my opinion of the DAO and maybe I’m wrong, but I think both you and MOD are totally missing the point.

The COMMUNITY Fund DAO isn’t for infrastructure, that’s Cryptape’s job, who have their own funding streams.

Of course, infra projects can still apply for funding, and I suppose you could even call this proposal infrastructure, but it’s only infrastructure to help the DAO do what it was designed to do, which is to encourage community participation in funding projects that should bring immediate (or at least short term) value to CKB.

CKB is infrastructure, it’s actually all we are and all we have been for most of the last 6 years, we need apps now.

The thinking in this sentence is so backwards. Maybe it’s lost in translation a little bit, so I apologise if I’ve got it wrong, but this is how I read it.

“Lets not do anything to encourage more participation until the participation is higher.”