DaoV1.1 Ending the Stagnation and Moving Forward

CKB Community Fund DAO
1

I created this Topic in response to a lot of the recent discussion around Daov1.1 Though there is alot I would like to say on it, its more important I stay concise and keep to whats crucial for our community and the DAO v1.1 to move forward

This is my observation and explanation after reading the recent discussions. please read through the full thing before coming to a conclusion about my perspective

I do agree with @president_tin comment

Dao v1.1 has recieved a significant higher amounts of scrutiny, And alot of it has taken time to manifest.

With that being said the Dao is fundamentally unique and changing to meta rules etc should not be taking lightly.. It takes time and various expertise to properly evaluate a new structure by the community which sadly may happen as its rolling out. So i understand Phroi and Matts perspective and appreciate the hard work they put in and I ressonate with what matt put forward here–

Baiyu did express he wanted the Daov1.1 to further align with the commmunity and @matt_ckb and @phroi do speak for a large amount of the community, however…

@david-fi5box raises a crucial point and i dont think its the communities will to have a full over haul of Daov1.1 and judging by david who has been working tirelessly that seems what a full overhaul of the design implies

Matt did say “Baiyu has graciously tried to navigate the conflict” so here is the crux of the issue we need to come to a compromise, the ability for the community to come to compromises and move forward shows maturation of our Dao there is no point we mull over what has been but look forward Instead.

In the spirit of compromise and us putting an end to this stagnation, I put forward this crucial question

This is for @phroi and @david-fi5box, Phroi is there a compromise or work around you can come up with, or accept that doesn’t require a entire Daov1.1 overhaul as far as the design is concerned, I know your very creative, so i hope you can come up with a solution :folded_hands: . And david would said compromise be acceptable to you, if not any ideas or adjustments that would?

I know things have been a bit rocky within the community but thats only because we are lucky enough to have so many passionate members who care about CKB.

I’m confident the community will find an acceptable solution and move forward with the Daov1.1 @phroi I await your expertise on the matter

4 Likes
DAO V1.1 Reference Auditor: An Independent Assessment
2

Good Luck and Godspeed,
Phroi

PS: @terrytai feel free to lock up this thread too

2 Likes
3

Just a thought, and this might be against the meta rules itself, but is there a possibility for a moratorium on meta rule proposals for say 6 months or until either an independent audit tool or a different voting system altogether could be developed?

I’m pretty sure the stewards are in place for a certain amount of time anyway, so that leaves the remaining risk being vote manipulation on general proposals.

That’s is still an issue of course, but this risk may be more acceptable, especially seeing as this whole thing has made everyone very aware of the possibilities which may make it a lot harder for an exploit to take place.

Anyway, just an idea.

4

Thank you replying @phroi thats great news! and judging from the link you sent @david-fi5box is on board with this “tool” as well. So just to be clear if the team is able to accomplish this tool the Daov1.1 would come to meet your approval?

1 Like
5

Oops, I didn’t even realize Phroi had replied to this before I posted my idea.

2 Likes
6

Phroi

3 Likes
7

Amazing! I’m glad we can come to a resolution on the matter

yes of course :saluting_face:

3 Likes
8

Thanks to NightLantern
I have developed a reference implementation of a community independent audit tool, everyone can take a look.

CCF-DAO1-1/ccfdao-vote-auditor-rfc: reference implement of ccfdao-vote-auditor

6 Likes
DAO V1.1 Reference Auditor: An Independent Assessment
9

Audited it against the 9 requirements Solution:

DAO V1.1 Reference Auditor: An Independent Assessment

1 Like
10

我并不是说 phroi 不能提意见。任何技术质疑都可以提，也应该被回答。
但治理公平的前提是：谁有提问权，谁就不应拥有规则外的否决权。

DAO v1.1 既然已经写明了 milestone verification、quick confirmation vote，以及 “default pass with a community veto right” 的收口机制，那么事情就应该回到这个机制里解决，而不是在机制之外不断追加新的门槛。

现在这个帖子的观感非常糟糕：
不是社区按既有流程决定项目是否继续，而是项目团队一轮轮退让，一个 reviewer 一轮轮加条件，直到对方说“可以了”为止。
这不是 rules-based governance，这更像 informal veto。

真正的问题不是 phroi 有没有技术观点，而是：
为什么 phroi 的反馈会在事实上变成必须被满足的条件？
为什么一个本应由社区流程收口的问题，最后演变成了由个别人不断施压、团队不断补作业？

如果没有更高层级的默许或站台，这种反馈真的会获得今天这样的实际约束力吗？
如果答案是否定的，那就更说明问题不在技术本身，而在治理结构已经出现了明显失衡。

DAO 最怕的，不是有人提尖锐问题。
DAO 最怕的是：表面上说按规则，实际上却是谁声音大、谁背后有分量、谁就拥有事实上的阻断权。

11

这 9 条不是重点，重点是发言姿态。
phroi 不是在提建议，而是在扮演验收者：先暗示团队 withholding information，再单方面列条件，再把“let me audit it”当成是否可以继续的门槛。
这不是公平治理，这是把个人审查升级成事实否决权。

12