Formal Vote, Debate, and Outcome
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-10-27T10:04:56, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-10-27T10:21:14)
Replying to this message from 舟舟 tovarishch:
Dear all, as our Community Review Month is coming to a close, we’ve just posted a new update to the proposal, incorporating all the great feedback from the last few weeks:
- The Changelog: We’ve shortened the review…
Dear all,
After a month of incredible community discussion, refinement, and collaboration, it’s time to make a decision. The formal vote for the DAO v1.1 proposal is now open for the next 7 days.
This proposal aims to:
Introduce DAO Stewards for professional operations
Build a new Web5 governance platform
Optimize the entire governance process
This is a meta-rule change, so it requires a high threshold to pass: 67% YES votes & a 185M CKB quorum. Your participation is more critical than ever.
Thank you to everyone who contributed to this process. Let’s get this done.
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-10-28T10:42:29, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-10-28T15:43:00)
Replying to this message from 舟舟 tovarishch:
Dear all,
After a month of incredible community discussion, refinement, and collaboration, it’s time to make a decision. The formal vote for the DAO v1.1 proposal is now open for the next 7 days.
…
Dear all, a quick but important update on the DAO v1.1 vote:
- High Engagement: In just 24 hours, voter turnout has already surpassed any meta-rule vote from the last year.
- A Crucial Discussion: A voter has raised a profound challenge about our DAO’s core bottleneck (“builders scarce vs. process failure”). Thanks for the valuable question and we have responded with a data-driven analysis.
We’ve posted a summary of the conversation and the latest voting stats on the Nervos Talk [DIS] Community Fund DAO v1.1 Web5 优化提案/ Community Fund DAO v1.1 Web5 Optimization Proposal - #62 by zz_tovarishch
If you care about the DAO’s future, we appreciate you reading it and then casting your vote https://dao.ckb.community/thread/vot-community-fund-dao-v1-1-web5-community-fund-dao-v1-1-web5-optimization-proposal-64083
Phill | Phillip.bit (never DM, always in public) (2025-10-29T06:22:21, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-10-29T22:53:30)
The community needs a sustainable governance platform for the future of the network. Is that what the proposal is? Maybe not but IMO it’s a step in the right direction. The community will not learn how to govern overnight. I’ve always viewed the community DAO as a steppingstone to bigger things.
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-10-29T09:56:55, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-10-30T10:13:43)
Replying to this message from 舟舟 tovarishch:
Dear all, a quick but important update on the DAO v1.1 vote:
- High Engagement: In just 24 hours, voter turnout has already surpassed any meta-rule vote from the last year.
- A Crucial Discussion: A voter has r…
DAO v1.1 Vote Update & Timeline Change
Dear all, quorum achieved, and the vote is tight (~46% YES). Appreciating your engagement and contribution to our community’s governance!
To ensure high-quality delivery, we’re proactively extending our dev timeline by 1 month. We’re building robust infra, not a rushed product. And our CKCon MVP promise remains.
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-10-29T10:54:05, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-10-29T21:33:46)
Dear all, thank you for the passionate discussion on the DAO v1.1 proposal, especially to @Winnerwinner111 for the frank and sharp critiques. A healthy governance process needs these voices. I’d like to take this opportunity to address these important concerns head-on.
1. The Core Issue: Are We Building an Office or Sharpening the Axe?
A central critique is that our problem is “scarce builders,” not a “failed process,” so we should attract builders first, not build a system no one will use.
This view seems intuitive, but it overlooks a harsh reality: the machine we use to attract and support builders is broken. Our previous reply on Metaforo detailed this with data:
- Community attention has collapsed: Proposal views in 2024 are just one-third of what they were in 2023.
- External teams are being discouraged: Of 9 proposals from external teams in 2024, zero made it to a vote.
- The voting system is failing: A 100% approved proposal for USD pricing failed due to low participation.
- Active projects are being harmed: CKBoost was left waiting for payment after delivering a milestone.
When the axe is dull, the right move isn’t to chop harder; it’s to stop and sharpen the axe. The v1.1 proposal isn’t about building a “luxury office”; it’s about sharpening our one and only axe.
2. On the Team: Are stewards “Managers” or “Servants”?
The proposal clearly defines the DAO Stewards as a “service team” with zero voting or decision-making power. They are elected by the community for a one-year term and can be impeached by a no-confidence vote at any time. This is a clearly defined executive role under strict community oversight, and it has nothing to do with any form of centralized control.
3. On Alternatives: Why Not Just a “Guideline” or a “Free Platform”?
A “guideline” won’t solve the problem: The struggles of v1.0 prove that rules without execution tools and accountable individuals are ineffective.
Web5 is the strategy to combine BTC/CKB, RGB++, Fiber, with good-to-use and distributed Web2 technologies, like nostr and AT protocol. We are building Web5 infrastructure, not an MIS system: No off-the-shelf Web2 platform can meet our core needs: sovereign identity via Web5 did, on-chain governance data, deep integration with CKB assets, and a user-friendly experience. This is a vital piece of ecosystem infrastructure, and its complexity and value are far beyond that of a simple proposal system.
4. On the Budget: Is It a “Cost” or a Reasonable Investment in Professional Work?
The $100k budget is primarily split into two parts: $72k for platform development and $18k for the first year of the Stewards’ operations. As mentioned above, this budget is not for “building an office”; it is to provide reasonable compensation for the professional labor of the skilled developers, designers, and project managers required to build this Web5 infrastructure.
We believe that investing market-rate resources into a strategic infrastructure project critical to the DAO’s future is a responsible use of community funds.
Thanks again for your attention to the DAO governance, and I hope my answer has solved your concern.
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-10-29T10:55:47, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-10-29T11:20:32)
Additionally, a thank you to @TheSpaceKook and @Wyltek for your insightful discussion. As Phill pointed out, the Community Fund DAO was created precisely to fund community-led initiatives like v1.1 that build public goods for the ecosystem.
We believe a more professional, efficient, and transparent governance framework is the cornerstone for attracting and retaining all future builders. We welcome all rational critiques and look forward to the community’s final decision in the vote.
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-10-30T04:11:47, Nervos Nation)
Dear all, wanted to share more thoughts on the ongoing DAO v1.1 vote and a key debate.
It really boils down to this core question: Is our problem “scarce builders,” or is a broken process actively discouraging them?
Our take is that the warning signs are already here: collapsing attention, failed key votes, and harmed active projects. We believe the rational choice right now is to take action to address these risks.
So, the community is faced with a clear strategic choice:
- Do we wait for more “proof” within the existing framework and accept the risk of the DAO falling into further stagnation?
- Or do we make a reasonable strategic investment now to fix the series of failure signals we already see, creating the necessary precondition to attract and retain builders in the future?
Certainly, we would genuinely welcome a proposal from our community that directly tackles builder attraction. The two choices are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they could be complementary.
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-10-30T04:12:13, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-10-30T04:35:00)
Also, a friendly reminder: you can only vote with CKB staked in the Neuron Wallet. This friction is one goal the new Web5 platform in the v1.1 proposal is designed to fix.
The vote is incredibly close, and the approval rate is not yet at the 67% threshold. If you agree we need this upgrade, your vote is crucial. https://dao.ckb.community/thread/vot-community-fund-dao-v1-1-web5-community-fund-dao-v1-1-web5-optimization-proposal-64083 
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-10-30T13:26:58, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-10-30T13:28:11)
Firstly, a sincere thank you to every community member who has voted, whether Yes or No. You took the time to study the proposal and navigate the somewhat complex Neuron voting process. That participation alone deserves the utmost respect!
Right now, the engagement has far exceeded expectations, with a total of 250M votes surpassing the 185M quorum.
But the vote is extremely close, with the current approval rate at 55.25%, still a ways to go from the 67%.
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-10-30T13:27:24, Nervos Nation)
Over the past day, I’ve seen two very real and important perspectives emerge in the community:
The first is a feeling of frustration and distrust in the current situation. A sense that the governance experience is too cumbersome, the value of past projects is unclear, and that critical feedback can feel unwelcome.
Our proposal team relates to this feeling deeply. As Baiyu mentioned, he was also discouraged by the Neuron sync process several times. These pain points are the very reason we initiated the v1.1 proposal. We’re not trying to make things more complicated; we simply want to use a new, unified platform and service team to solve the current problems of fragmented tools, poor communication, and high barriers to entry.
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-10-30T13:27:43, Nervos Nation)
The second is: are we focused on the wrong thing? The problem is a lack of projects and builders, so why spend money on an internal system?
This is the main point I responded to yesterday. When teams arrive with ideas but can’t communicate well; when a 100% approved proposal fails due to low turnout; when a project delivers but can’t get paid… These aren’t isolated incidents but are signals of a system in failure. We hope to fix this with v1.1.
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-10-30T13:27:47, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-10-30T13:28:52)
The v1.1 proposal isn’t a perfect, one-shot solution, but it is a sincere attempt to solve real problems. As one CN community member, “再见理想”, said, a new attempt is better than doing nothing at all.
Thanks again, everyone!
Neon (if I DM I scam) (2025-10-30T14:11:26, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-10-30T14:12:11)
Replying to this message from 舟舟 tovarishch:
The second is: are we focused on the wrong thing? The problem is a lack of projects and builders, so why spend money on an internal system?
This is the main point I responded to yesterday. When teams arrive with ideas…
Having observed the discussion I think the merit of DAO v1.1 can be seen from the efficiency and procedural benefits.
It’s clear to me based on the history of v0 that the lack of proposals and overall interest is an entirely separate issue and wouldn’t be solved by procedural improvements.
For that, continued efforts to build relationships and funnel them towards the DAO would be necessary, along the lines of Catalyst, Spark and any other BD or community outreach. Some roles similar to this are mentioned in Jordan’s DAO v2 proposal.
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-10-30T15:06:38, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-10-30T15:39:46)
Replying to this message from Neon (if I DM I scam):
Having observed the discussion I think the merit of DAO v1.1 can be seen from the efficiency and procedural benefits.
It’s clear to me based on the history of v0 that the lack of proposals and overall interest is an…
Hi Neon, I completely agree with your core point: v1.1 itself is not designed to directly “create” new proposals, and attracting builders requires continuous, dedicated efforts, much like Catalyst, Spark, BD, outreach, and some roles in Jordan’s V2.
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-10-30T15:06:49, Nervos Nation)
But the two are complementary, not mutually exclusive.
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-10-30T15:06:58, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-10-30T15:40:06)
Otherwise, regardless of the final outcome of the vote, seeing so many community members like you investing so much time and energy into discussing the future of the DAO is one of the most valuable outcomes our proposal team could have hoped for.
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-10-30T15:07:20, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-11-01T21:34:04)
Honestly, if this vote can inspire any community member to bring more proposals, like one that directly tackles the “builder attraction” problem, then all our efforts will have been worthwhile.
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-10-31T09:04:50, Nervos Nation)
Replying to this message from 舟舟 tovarishch:
Dear all,
After a month of incredible community discussion, refinement, and collaboration, it’s time to make a decision. The formal vote for the DAO v1.1 proposal is now open for the next 7 days.
…
The v1.1 vote has now surpassed 300M CKB in total votes. The approval rate has climbed to 62.66%, getting closer to the 67% goal.
There are three days left to vote. Thanks to all community members participating in the governance. Have a great weekend!
Matt (2025-10-31T15:45:00, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-10-31T23:55:36)
hope everyone interested in governance can take a second to check this, https://dao.ckb.community/landing?method=share&thread=vot-community-fund-dao-v1-1-web5-community-fund-dao-v1-1-web5-optimization-proposal-64083&post=1999470
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-11-01T06:41:15, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-11-01T10:41:09)
Replying to this message from Matt:
hope everyone interested in governance can take a second to check this, https://dao.ckb.community/landing?method=share&thread=vot-community-fund-dao-v1-1-web5-community-fund-dao-v1-1-web5-optimization-proposal-64083&p…
Thanks, Matt, for sharing your thoughts and for raising these incredibly important considerations.
I just reply here: https://dao.ckb.community/landing?method=share&thread=vot-community-fund-dao-v1-1-web5-community-fund-dao-v1-1-web5-optimization-proposal-64083&refer_id=49172&post=1999483.
We will absolutely keep your warnings in mind and, if this proposal passes, we’ll work hard to do it right.
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-11-02T11:43:41, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-11-02T14:39:56)
Hi everyone, a community member has voted NO for the v1.1 proposal, with the core reason being concerns about high estimates in the budget (e.g., domains’ cost).
After careful discussion, we have just posted a formal reply on Metaforo, which includes the public commitments regarding the budget:
Full Transparency Commitment: After each milestone is completed, we will publish a detailed, itemized report of all fund usage alongside our delivery report.
Cost Control Commitment: All non-labor infrastructure budgets (including domains, and others such as servers, contract deployment fees, etc.) will be handled on an “at-cost reimbursement” basis. All receipts will be kept for community audit at any time. Any and all surplus funds will be 100% returned to the DAO treasury.
In our reply, we also detailed our “more work for the same price” situation (a 25% timeline extension with 0% budget increase) and the rationale for the budget.
We believe this demonstrates our utmost sincerity and transparency. The vote has now seen 490M CKB participate, making it the highest-engagement governance proposal in the DAO’s history. The result is still extremely close at 61.29%. We urge everyone to read our full reply, to see our actions and commitments:
https://dao.ckb.community/landing?method=share&thread=64083&refer_id=49172&post=1999532
Phroi (No DM) (2025-11-02T21:56:36, Nervos Nation)
Replying to this message from 舟舟 tovarishch:
Hi everyone, a community member has voted NO for the v1.1 proposal, with the core reason being concerns about high estimates in the budget (e.g., domains’ cost).
After careful discussion, we have just posted a formal…
BTW that community member had one month more to raise those points, it feels just wrong to raise those type of concerns now…
Phroi (No DM) (2025-11-02T21:58:22, Nervos Nation)
Replying to this message from 舟舟 tovarishch:
Hi everyone, a community member has voted NO for the v1.1 proposal, with the core reason being concerns about high estimates in the budget (e.g., domains’ cost).
After careful discussion, we have just posted a formal…
I would also like to congratulate you on the participation this proposal reached in this voting phase 
Phroi (No DM) (2025-11-02T22:00:31, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-11-02T22:47:32)
Now is almost 604 M CKB, just wow!! I really hope to see this kind of participation in the upcoming Proposals 
Othmane (2025-11-02T22:31:26, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-11-02T22:32:02)
Replying to this message from Phroi (No DM):
Now is almost 604 M CKB, just wow!! I really hope to see this kind of participation in the upcoming Proposals
May I ask,
Are those 604M CKB used in voting like real CKB assets ?
Matt (2025-11-02T22:35:37, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-11-02T22:38:00)
Replying to this message from Othmane:
May I ask,
Are those 604M CKB used in voting like real CKB assets ?
Yes
Othmane (2025-11-02T22:37:30, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-11-02T22:38:06)
Replying to this message from Matt:
Yes
And people form all over Nervos community vote
That’s something … like that is some work sir
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-11-02T23:14:57, Nervos Nation)
Replying to this message from Phroi (No DM):
BTW that community member had one month more to raise those points, it feels just wrong to raise those type of concerns now…
Hi Phroi, thanks for your continuous support. The voter said s/he only saw the proposal in a recent WeChat article. So, it’s an example of the information silos we’re trying to fix with v1.1, ensuring everyone sees the proposal discussion as early as possible.
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-11-02T23:15:01, Nervos Nation)
But also grateful for their rigorous feedback, it shows they care deeply, and that’s always valuable for the DAO.
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-11-02T23:15:26, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-11-02T23:21:23)
Replying to this message from Othmane:
And people form all over Nervos community vote
That’s something … like that is some work sir
Yes, thrilled with the participation! 604M CKB is incredible
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-11-02T23:15:38, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-11-02T23:33:39)
Regardless of the final outcome, this level of engagement is a huge achievement. A big thank you to everyone who is participating!
Phroi (No DM) (2025-11-02T23:21:08, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-11-02T23:21:25)
Replying to this message from 舟舟 tovarishch:
Hi Phroi, thanks for your continuous support. The voter said s/he only saw the proposal in a recent WeChat article. So, it’s an example of the information silos we’re trying to fix with v1.1, ensuring everyone sees th…
I’ll keep an eye on how you achieve that, it’s an interesting problem. Feel free to drop a link to the repo whenever you feel ready 
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-11-04T00:21:16, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-11-04T01:43:59)
Hi everyone,
We are in the FINAL HOUR of the DAO v1.1 vote. Right now, the approval rate is 65.08%, just shy of the 67% needed to pass.
We have just seen a significant “NO” vote cast, which moved the needle, but it was cast without any comment.
We respect every voter’s decision. For the past month, the team has done everything possible to respond to, clarify, and amend the proposal in response to every public concern raised.
If you are one of the members who voted NO, we sincerely ask:
Would you be willing to share your reason? Is there a critical flaw we’ve missed?
If there is, even in this last hour, we want to hear it.
If you support this proposal and have not yet voted: This is the final call.
Thanks for all your engagement in v1.1!
https://dao.ckb.community/thread/vot-community-fund-dao-v1-1-web5-community-fund-dao-v1-1-web5-optimization-proposal-64083
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-11-04T01:10:44, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-11-04T02:10:39)
Thank You, Community. Our Shared Journey Continues.
Hello everyone,
The 7-day vote for the DAO v1.1 proposal has officially concluded.
In the end, 527,873,238 CKB participated and the proposal received 65.08% approval, which did not meet the 67% threshold required for a meta-rule change. According to the rules, the DAO v1.1 proposal has not passed.
We fully accept and respect this democratic decision from the community.
Although the proposal itself did not pass, we want to state that what we experienced together over the past month has been an incredibly successful governance event. In this vote:
- The total participating CKB peaked at 603 million, representing 8.4% of the entire Nervos DAO.
- This was, without question, the highest-engagement, most in-depth, and most intense public debate in the CKB Community Fund DAO’s history.
We succeeded in refocusing the entire community’s attention on a deep discussion about the future of the DAO. We re-engaged dormant voters and sparked a genuine debate about the DAO’s core bottlenecks. For this alone, all our efforts were worthwhile.
Our Deepest Gratitude
We want to extend our sincere gratitude to every single participant:
- To everyone who voted YES, thank you. Your trust and support were the fuel that kept us going until the very last minute.
- We must also thank everyone who voted NO and those who offered sharp critiques and rigorous scrutiny. Your challenges (on the budget, the process, and the core premise) are the most valuable check and balance in DAO governance. You forced us to constantly refine our thinking and made this debate truly meaningful.
- Thank you to everyone who joined the discussions on Talk, Telegram, and Twitter.
What’s Next
While the v1.1 proposal did not pass, the problems it sought to solve have not disappeared.
The issue of the DAO’s stagnation is still in front of us. The proposal team will take a short break, and we will carefully review all the disagreements and consensus points that emerged during this vote.
Our commitment to the CKB ecosystem is unchanged, and our exploration of DAO governance will not stop. We believe the community will draw strength from this profound discussion, and that a more mature v1.2 or v2.0 proposal that can achieve broader consensus will emerge in the future.
The road is long, but we will keep walking!
Thank you all again.
舟舟 tovarishch (2025-11-12T09:18:22, Nervos Nation, edited 2025-11-12T10:32:07)
Following community scrutiny and a rigorous investigation by the DAO Multisig Committee, the DAO v1.1 proposal has passed with 75.2% approval: [DIS] Community Fund DAO v1.1 Web5 优化提案/ Community Fund DAO v1.1 Web5 Optimization Proposal - #71 by terrytai
The investigation confirmed a Metaforo vulnerability allowing duplicate voting, involving over 71 million CKB in weight. The final result reflects votes after removing duplicates.
We thank those who raised concerns, the investigation teams, and all voters. This experience proves the community chose to investigate truth over covering problems, to correct results over maintaining surface consensus.
This also validates what our proposal advocated: the community needs our own governance infrastructure.
Full thanks letter and next to do here
[DIS] Community Fund DAO v1.1 Web5 优化提案/ Community Fund DAO v1.1 Web5 Optimization Proposal - #72 by zz_tovarishch