I would be actively against any proposal that “incentivised” users to vote with giveaways, free tokens, and airdrops.
A genuine proposal should not need to incentivise users to participate in a vote. It could be detrimental both to this project and nervos if the proposal stays in its current form. I would suggest the proposal is withdrawn, reconsidered and reworded, then resubmitted.
I don’t think its a good idea to incentivize people to vote. It should be up to their free will not a soft bribe. Why? because the votes will not be genuine. You could have done this airdrop thing way before the proposal as a campaign to get love from the community and show off what you can do for them. If im voting for something its because I have seen whats been done and i think the vision could take a step further. The way youre doing it is literally trying to buy votes c’mon will you even have hardcore supporters that way?. Do it the proper way!
We start on Nervos and we belong to Nervos, our initial plans were some TGE shares should be shared by community participants. This is just a small gift we give to everyone who loves this community and make Nervos Dao more active in this way.
As you can see many supporters didn’t leave an 0x address and they just support what we did.
After receiving your feedback,we started to reconsider whether this was the right thing to do and we respect every member of the community.
Im surprised that this rule wasnt in efect from the beggining. A project that has potential and is solid doesnt need to bribe investors to vote for it, instead they should present their use case and potential and try to convice investors of their potential without airdrops and any kind of “payment” for voting yes.
Thank you for your interest and we are thinking about the rightness of doing this.
Believe me, most of the votes were simply in support of the project and they didn’t leave 0x address.
Our proposal said we would airdrop those who voted, which also included a negative vote, and the controversial discussion was helpful in improving our project.
Not to throw any shade at the huntingNFT team, because my issue is not with them. But just in consideration for the overall process of a community fund and dao, i think it would be appropriate to prevent any proposals that have the appearance of buying or incentivizing votes. I think that would be best for the community overall.
I am one of the people that voted yes and didn’t leave an 0x address. I wasn’t bribed.
@HuntingNFT.Team 2 things I think you should clarify as I have seen people mention this as a reason why people should vote no for the project.
You gave away 50,000 in USD now you have no money and need a bail out and so applied for community funds. I know this to be untrue but your words would have much more meaning.
You are bribing people to vote. Maybe provide an example of how little $HNFT someone who voted 1 million CKB would get compared to someone that got a best tester NFT and then paid the about 10,000 ckb it would take to get the gear to mint a dragon on mainnet.
I want to repeat, I don’t want anything in exchange for my vote, positive or negative. That includes being “approached” to justify why I voted yes. Voting without being anonymous is super fun…
There is still no rule in place that restricts incentives, although I agree there should be. The HuntingNFT team shouldn’t be penalized for our lack of community engagement while we decide where do we draw the line. For example, and I think this is as unfair as the criticism the huntingnft team has received. But why couldn’t someone have made the argument that offering to pay community educators could have been used to buy votes.
As a possible compromise here as it relates to being rewarded for voting if it will reduce the noise Maybe ask the people that posted an 0x address already to agree to add what they would be given directly to the 6 million best tester pool or the 14 million mainnet pool. For those unaware the 14 million mainnet pool is still available for anyone that mints a dragon on mainnet. That would allow for everyone to benefit equally.
@HuntingNFT.Team I applaud your professional in responding to criticism over the past few days.
I think everyone here has their heart in the right place and wants the ecosystem to succeed. But in my opinion we have gone off rails here.
This community fund is just a precursor to the Treasury which has a permanent perpetual funding mechanism in place. Why there is so much hate for a project that is already built to the point it has incorporated most parts of the ecosystem is puzzling to me.
我是投赞成票并且没有留下 0x 地址的人之一。 我没有被贿赂。
@HuntingNFT.Team 我认为你应该澄清 2 件事，因为我看到有人提到这是人们应该对该项目投反对票的原因。
你捐赠了 50,000 美元，现在你没有钱，需要救助，所以申请了社区基金。 我知道这是不真实的，但你的话会有更多的意义。
你在贿赂人们投票。 也许提供一个例子，说明投票给 100 万 CKB 的人与获得最佳测试 NFT 然后支付大约 10,000 ckb 的人相比，获得在主网上铸造龙的装备所需的 HNFT 美元是多么少。
我想重复一遍，我不想要任何东西来换取我的投票，无论是正面的还是负面的。 这包括被“接近”以证明我投赞成票的原因。 不匿名投票超级好玩…
仍然没有限制激励的规则，尽管我同意应该有。 在我们决定界限在哪里时，HuntingNFT 团队不应该因为我们缺乏社区参与而受到惩罚。 例如，我认为这与 huntingnft 团队收到的批评一样不公平。 但是，为什么没有人提出向社区教育工作者支付报酬可以用来购买选票的论点。
作为一个可能的妥协，因为它涉及到投票奖励，如果它会减少噪音也许要求已经发布 0x 地址的人同意将他们将直接提供给 600 万最佳测试人员池或 1400 万的人添加 主网池。 对于那些不知道的人来说，1400 万个主网池仍然可供任何在主网上铸造龙的人使用。 这将使每个人都能平等受益。
@HuntingNFT.Team 我赞赏你们在过去几天回应批评的专业人士。
我认为这里的每个人都有自己的心，希望生态系统成功。 但在我看来，我们在这里已经偏离了轨道。
该社区基金只是财政部的前身，财政部拥有永久性的永久资助机制。 为什么对一个已经构建到包含生态系统大部分部分的项目有如此多的仇恨让我感到困惑。
@Digitaldoyle I did propose a compromise earlier, which was to resubmit the proposal without offering tokens. Concerns about it were raised from an early stage, and while I agree that HuntingNFT is overall acting in good faith, controversy could have easily been avoided if they had taken those concerns on board from the get-go and simply removed that aspect.
Two previous votes have shown that we don’t need incentives to reach quorum. Regardless of whether all or some participants benefit, if the project itself is offering the airdrop as opposed to an independent party, then it is still a less overt form of vote buying.
I’m actually surprised there’s even a debate about this.
As for community educators, public applications were opened 2 weeks ago and we concluded the selection process a few days ago. Well after the proposal had already been approved. Nobody knew beforehand if they would be an educator - and certainly not at the time of the proposal or vote.
Anyway, I’ve said my piece. I hope the community can achieve consensus that this practice is best avoided in future.
First of all, I want to thank you for your support, we know that you are also participating in the game and observing the DisCord community before vote, independent research and deep thinking can make people more attractive.
I can explan for the two issues you mentioned：
1.This is a previous event we held called “Early Access Event”，to encourage users to experience mNFT on Nervos and HuntingNFT.
Afther event ending,the Galxe will random 500 winners to get the $HNFT event reward not USD reward，and this event will bring 500 or more new active users to the Nervos mainnet.
This is a Market Strategy and we have to attract enough attention and users on Nervos before Listing.
2.I can also explain to you that the amount of our TGE, which accounts for 2% of the total share, and all tokens will be airdropped to game participants before V2.0 goes online. Among them, 6000000 $HNFT is used to reward Best testers, and the other 14000000 $HNFT needs to be exchanged by users using the Wright Dragon NFT minted on the main network.
If at this Phase we have a total of 1000 dragons minted and each one costs an average of 7500 $CKB, then that means each dragon can be exchanged for 14000 $HNFT in next Phase.
We are already thinking about vot for airdrop things，we did not want to get votes through airdrops just want to make Nervos Dao more active in this way at beginning.
In addition, we also regret that we didn’t promote in the community, so when people see the proposal, they don’t know who we are, the first reaction to any unfamiliar project coming into the community is to bribe people to vote to steal money.
Many projects are heavily promoted before launch, but nothing happens after the IDO/IEO/ICO, which is hurts the ecology the most, so we didn’t want do any fundraising activities.We also believe that the only way to make Nervos more famous is make many nice ecological project and feedback benefits to the users.It’s not as effective to advertise 100 times as it is to get users to earn $1.
Finally, we appreciate your constructive comments to Nervos Dao and HuntingNFT. I believe if more people like you participate in the community and support ecological projects, Nervos will become stronger.
We started building HuntingNFT in 2021 and we all meet through the Nervos community. The core of the team came from large technology companies and we had no income during this time, but were still enthusiastic about working on the project. The initial vision for the project was to use our expertise to contribute to Nervos.
Thank you again for your support.
Definitely support this rule. Sounds a bit unethical in my books. Nervos has been a league apart in this regard and needs to stay this way.
As a moderator, I have informed the Committee of CKB Community Fund DAO of the controversy on HuntingNFT’s giveaways/airdrops to voters.
The Committee believes that this is a good time to update the meta-rules, and all members of the CKB community should be encouraged to discuss these updates. Updates may include but are not limited to the calculation method of votes, delay period for resubmission, incentives for voters, bribery, standards for evaluating, etc.
It should be noted that the updates of meta-rules should be the result of community discussion and voting, rather than being directly decided/updated by the Committee or moderators. So, glad to see more opinions before the proposal is raised.
作为一名管理员，我已经把 HuntingNFT 因为空投代币而引发争议这件事，告知了 CKB Community Fund DAO 管理委员会。
管理委员会认为，现在是一个迭代规则的好机会，应该鼓励 CKB 社区的所有成员充分讨论需要迭代的内容， 包括但不限于投票权重的计算方式、重新提交提案的等待期、是否允许给投票者激励、贿选以及评价标准，等等。
需要特别指出的是，元规则的迭代应该是社区讨论、投票后的结果， 而不是由 CKB Community Fund DAO 管理委员会或者管理员直接决定/修改。所以，在发起元规则的修改提案之前，希望在这个帖子下面看到更多人的观点。
Hi @JackyLHH, do you think a proposal for a one line addition to rules is possible based on Matt’s opening post?
Something like:
Incentive mechanisms such as money, material gain, favors, either explicitly or implicitly, should not be associated in any way with the proposal or voting process.
I feel like that is within the spirit of the opening post which has now reached 30 likes
Yes, I think having a one-line proposal is okay, though I think more details and explanations will help community members understand better.
Sometimes a small change makes big differences.
If we don’t submit in one lines, a proposal might only be 50% right, in which case you’d have to backtrack and submit them singular again.
There has been talking of anyone having their own tokens should not be advised to submit within the rules. That would prevent people from promising a stake in their ecosystem.
To which parts of the ecosystem have they built out?
L1 or L2?
This is a CKB thread and community fund.
The Nation proposal for instance is for L1 so videos are about a lot of Layer 1, (They have an NFT store coming soon and that’s L2 and helped/aided by Eric and his merry jedi)
I think we also need to discuss the actual use cases for the grant, is it for all layers?
As everything is decentralised, is it for Nervos as a whole?
Why do other layers get a free ride on a grant system built for the layer1 DAO if so?
Are other layers intending to add to this community fund if it’s for everyone to utilise? Those DAO funds are a part and will remain of the L1 Tokenomics system in the future as you mention.
To me, these questions are very important to know/understand.
I think we all dropped the ball here, apart from @matt.bit @neon.bit and @FlipForTheWin who had their say during the discussion phase.
I think it was obvious to @HuntingNFT.Team that this wasn’t going to be looked upon well by the community, but even after acknowledging this, they still went ahead with it.
But this is not their problem, they played by the rules at the time and there wasn’t enough of us who came forward publicly against this in the discussion phase, so it was the apathy of the community that is to blame IMO. Even now after 16 days, only 31 people have liked Matt’s original post.
Anyway, I think we need to look at the positive side of this now, it has brought to light some issues that I think will be far easier to rally behind now that it has actually happened and is not just a possibility.
While @HuntingNFT.Team might have made an unethical decision, I don’t think they are malicious and the funds will be spent on a project that will bring some sort of value to Nervos.
I also think that it was a small price to pay, as things could have been a lot worse.
For example, a malicious actor could have asked for 200M CKB, got through the proposal stage using multiple accounts and then offered all sorts of incentives at the voting stage, as there were no rules against this. At least now we will never have to deal with a situation like that.
fyi this is up for vote now
https://dao.ckb.community/thread/ban-incentivized-voting-in-dao-43212
The following is the Chinese translation of this proposal.
这条元治理规则来自 Nervos Talk 的提案（https://talk.nervos.org/t/dis-consideration-about-incentivizing-voting-process/7069/12）
该规则禁止向 DAO 的投票者空投任何资产。
因为这是一项元规则的变更，所以票数必须达到 1.85 亿张，且至少有 67% 的赞成票，才能通过。
这条规则并没有消除所有潜在的利益冲突，但确实解决了最恶劣的例子。
未来还可以考虑新添一条规则，来限制 CKB Community Fund DAO 资助那些会发行数字资产的项目。