Phroi (No DM) (2026-03-26T10:32:56, Nervos Nation)
Forwarded from Night Lantern.
Phroi are you able to make a live ama on discord tomorrow at 7 pm PST ?
Phroi (No DM) (2026-03-26T10:32:57, Nervos Nation)
Forwarded from Night Lantern.
a time for informal discussion on the design choices etc for DAO v1.1
Phroi (No DM) (2026-03-26T10:32:57, Nervos Nation)
Forwarded from Night Lantern.
if not let me know when you can
Phroi (No DM) (2026-03-26T10:33:46, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-03-26T10:48:55)
Hey @NightLantern100, let me reply here: I don’t use voice or video channels, also I’m not on social media. I’m much more at ease writing, so I’ll keep responding on Nervos Talk and here as usual 
Phroi (No DM) (2026-03-26T11:05:35, Nervos Nation)
BTW if @rink1969 still has Telegram account issues, I would consider the following:
- Create a new Telegram account
- See if the flag cleared
- Switch the new account to old account handle
- See if the flag is still clear
- Delete old account
Sadly, this might be the only real way to resolve account issues deriving from centralization & whitelists of Telegram 
Night Lantern (2026-03-26T15:00:26, Nervos Nation)
@phroi hey phroi, I’m trying to organize a informal live public discord Ama for you to discuss design choices with the Daov1.1 team. when are you available ?
Night Lantern (2026-03-26T15:16:38, Nervos Nation)
Replying to this message from Phroi (No DM):
Hey @NightLantern100, let me reply here: I don’t use voice or video channels, also I’m not on social media. I’m much more at ease writing, so I’ll keep responding on Nervos Talk and here as usual
ohh i see, yea the discord channel is text not voice 
so your good to go (:
Neon (if I DM I scam) (2026-03-26T15:23:09, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-03-26T15:31:53)
If it’s quite a technical discussion it’s best done asynchronously right? So people have time to construct their responses
Night Lantern (2026-03-26T16:30:45, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-03-26T16:38:53)
okay so is the community consensus we just stick to talks then?
Night Lantern (2026-03-26T16:33:51, Nervos Nation)
Replying to this message from Neon (if I DM I scam):
If it’s quite a technical discussion it’s best done asynchronously right? So people have time to construct their responses
— considering the technical aspect as you say, informal isn’t optimal
Phroi (No DM) (2026-03-28T16:10:51, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-03-28T16:54:33)
Replying to this message from Jan:
The whitelist issue seems more like a mechanism design problem to me, not a technical issue, as it seems not to be an incorrect implementation, but designed to so. I’m curious how was the dao v1.1 mechanism design dec…
Sigh, I came to same realization about the DAO v1.1 DID implementation
Using AT Protocol will only lead to centralization, see all the issues. NOSTR is the real decentralized alternative:
DAO V1.1 Web5 Identity Layer: Community-Led Review - #4 by phroi 
PS: AT Protocol was known to be not crypto-friendly
AT Protocol compatibility was never a consideration: their paths diverge. Bluesky explicitly stated they won’t partner with any specific blockchain project.
Jan (2026-03-29T01:40:52, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-03-29T01:56:05)
to be clear, what I was trying to point out is the communication gap - it seemed like that one was challenging the mechanism and the other was explaining code.
I’m fine with trade-offs especially when we know it’s not the eventual DAO. Like dao v1.0 it stated clear the goal was to kickoff and simplicity-focused and had to accept some trade-offs.
I support building stuffs gradually, however the trade-offs should be explained clearly, why these trade-offs are made. The communication should try to eliminate any discrepancies between what’s perceived and what it actually is. Notice: all these are the responsibility for the role of the project lead, not the dev lead. Dev leads can debate vim vs emacs forever and those are all good opinions. The project lead need to make decisions and trade-offs based on the goal, timeline and resource constraints, make sure intentions and reasonings are well communicated.
To me v1.1 is better than v1.0, its voting is much better than metaforo. However this could turn into another ‘which tech is the most decentralized debate’ and lock the ckb community on metaforo for another year, if the v1.1 team leadership can’t handle it well
Phroi (No DM) (2026-03-30T01:22:57, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-03-30T01:56:55)
Replying to this message from Jan:
to be clear, what I was trying to point out is the communication gap - it seemed like that one was challenging the mechanism and the other was explaining code.
I’m fine with trade-offs especially when we know it’s not…
As independent DAO v1.1 observer, did you review the process & code?
I need to say code, cause the documentation timeline is a bit strange:
- 1 December 2025: DAO v1.1 had been built and M1 declared delivered
- 18 Jan 2026: First coherent public design explanation
- 10 days ago: First real trust-model / decentralization document
Documentation only functions as a retrospective documentation of an already coded system, not a design plan released in time for any meaningful public feedback.
Before starting the code review, I had your same opinion. Now I’m not so sure:
-
Voter eligibility is still decided off-chain by operator-run services, so the most important governance boundary is not trustless
(This will need a meta vote in itself, cause it changes eligibility rules) -
Casting a vote still depends on operator-issued proof data, so participation is not permission-less once the system is live
(System literally needs to reply “I have you on my list, here is the proof”. System forgets to reply? You can not even prove your were excluded from the vote) -
Vote counting and weight resolution is so complex that I found a double counting vulnerability. Add to that there still is no audit tool, so currently
corrupted database = corrupted vote (We have that document from 10 days ago tho) -
The identity layer falls waaay short of “Type A application (totally decentralized) as a benchmark to showcase the core advantages of Web5”: DID lookup, PDS, and signing-key handling still introduce respectively centralization, data barriers and non-trivial security risks
(BTW not even one mention of Light Client)
Again, I admire the effort and ingenuity in building this system, just it doesn’t really feel like a step forward
Jan (2026-03-30T03:04:17, Nervos Nation)
Replying to this message from Phroi (No DM):
As independent DAO v1.1 observer, did you review the process & code?
I need to say code, cause the documentation timeline is a bit strange:
- 1 December 2025: [DAO v1.1 had been built and M1 declared deliver…
no, I didn’t review process and code
Jan (2026-03-30T03:14:16, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-03-30T12:55:31)
I believe we’re not talking about the same thing. For example, it appears to me you were challenging the mechanism (through code review) but v1.1 team was explaining the code, because it was always v1.1 dev lead answering questions. I’m not sure if I misunderstood but dev lead is usually not the owner of a project.
I fully support your code review and challenges to dao v1.1. I just don’t see how it can be solved on the code review and developer vs developer level.
Phroi (No DM) (2026-03-30T15:01:49, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-03-31T16:49:42)
Replying to this message from Jan:
I believe we’re not talking about the same thing. For example, it appears to me you were challenging the mechanism (through code review) but v1.1 team was explaining the code, because it was always v1.1 dev lead answe…
So glad you enjoyed them, happy to review code of public interest and educate the Community! Whoever wants to thoughtfully reply to my posts is more than welcomed
Taking a step back, we have a 3 person DAO v1.0 committee and a transitional period coordinator who can answer the following:
**
-
Did DAO v1.1 meet the goals stated in the proposal?
-
If DAO v1.1 did not meet stated goals, what happens next?**
舟舟 tovarishch (2026-03-31T02:00:54, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-03-31T12:06:20)
Replying to this message from Phroi (No DM):
So glad you enjoyed them, happy to review code of public interest and educate the Community! Whoever wants to thoughtfully reply to my posts is more than welcomed
Taking a step back, we have a 3 person DAO v1.0…
Thanks for raising this, Phroi.
On your first question: the proposal & steward team’s Mar 17 statement acknowledged that the platform has not yet met the delivery standard for Milestone 2. A 4-week public testing period is underway and still ongoing. At the end of the testing period, the steward team will submit a Milestone 2 verification report.
On the second: under the v1.0 staged payment amendment, proposals exceeding $10,000 are paid in stages, with evaluations and confirmations at the end of each stage. The proposer is required to submit progress reports covering milestones, deliverables, and fund utilization. Once the 4-week testing period concludes and the report is published, this process will proceed accordingly. I’ll be coordinating with the committee on the specifics.
Phroi (No DM) (2026-03-31T16:39:24, Nervos Nation)
Replying to this message from 舟舟 tovarishch:
Thanks for raising this, Phroi.
On your first question: the proposal & steward team’s Mar 17 statement acknowledged that the plat…
Thank you for the reply! I was wondering, as transitional period coordinator, could you clarify how are these verification reports reviewed? 
For example, yesterday I noticed that Milestone 0 included this very deliverable:
A complete technical architecture design document.
When M0 was paid along with M1 in 20 Decenber 2025, this was the state of documentation (no other design document were submitted for public review):
The only non-placeholder pages were the following ones:
To give a perspective, the followings were not delivered by the time of the payment:
- A real trust-model / decentralization document (11 days ago)
- An analysis of AT Protocol, leading on the reason for its choice over alternatives (Still not found)
Hence my initial question
舟舟 tovarishch (2026-03-31T17:06:37, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-03-31T17:11:51)
Replying to this message from Phroi (No DM):
Thank you for the reply! I was wondering, as transitional period coordinator, could you clarify how are these verification reports reviewed?
For example, yesterday I noticed that [Milestone 0 included this very…
Under v1.0, the staged payment amendment requires proposers to submit progress reports at each milestone, and for evaluations and confirmations to be conducted at the end of each stage. The amendment does not specify a formal review body or verification procedure.
In practice, milestone reports of projects under 1.0 are published on Nervos Talk for community feedback, with the committee handling disbursement.
舟舟 tovarishch (2026-03-31T17:06:56, Nervos Nation)
On how the M2 verification report will be conducted specifically, @haoyang94 can speak to that as the steward team’s ops lead.
Phroi (No DM) (2026-03-31T17:23:47, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-03-31T17:32:13)
Replying to this message from 舟舟 tovarishch:
Under v1.0, the staged payment amendment requires proposers to submit progress reports at each milestone, and for evaluations and confirmations to be conducted at the end of each stage. The amendment does not specify…
May I ask for your team to the deliver the complete technical architecture design document that was due for M0?
Idea: not only how/why things works in DAO v1.1, but especially why such controversial design choices were made and why alternatives were deemed worse than the current design.
Thank you 
舟舟 tovarishch (2026-03-31T17:41:24, Nervos Nation)
Replying to this message from Phroi (No DM):
May I ask for your team to the deliver the complete technical architecture design document that was due for M0?
Idea: not only how/why things works in DAO v1.1, but especially why such controversial design cho…
Noted.
This relates to the technical architecture design document listed under M0 deliverables. @haoyang94 can you coordinate with the team on this?
Phroi (No DM) (2026-03-31T18:26:48, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-03-31T18:34:03)
Replying to this message from 舟舟 tovarishch:
On how the M2 verification report will be conducted specifically, @haoyang94 can speak to that as the steward team’s ops lead.
BTW there is a clear conflict of interest: the team responsible for reviewing the project and establishing acceptance criteria is the same team that developed it
I would be surprised if the Transitional Period Coordinator role was deliberately assigned by the DAO v1.0 committee to permit this arrangement.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the three-member DAO v1.0 committee (@busyforking, @terrytai, & @cipherw), in consultation with the Transitional Period Coordinator (@zz_tovarishch & his delegate @haoyang94), to carefully consider and clarify the procedures for the forthcoming review, given the problems already encountered during the DAO v1.1 M0–M1 review.
I’m considering a Nervos Talk post to make this request formally public 
舟舟 tovarishch (2026-03-31T18:38:05, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-03-31T18:49:09)
Replying to this message from Phroi (No DM):
BTW there is a clear conflict of interest:
the team responsible for reviewing the project and establishing acceptance criteria is the same team that developed itI would be surprised if the [Transitional Period…
That’s a fair concern to raise formally. A Talk post would make sure the committee sees it and can respond properly.
One small correction: Haoyang is the steward team’s ops lead, not my delegate.
Phroi (No DM) (2026-03-31T18:45:43, Nervos Nation)
Replying to this message from 舟舟 tovarishch:
That’s a fair concern to raise formally. A Talk post would make sure the committee sees it and can respond properly.
One small correction: Haoyang is the steward team’s ops lead, not my delegate.
Yeah, but as you said, v1.1 rules don’t apply yet to DAO v1.1 proposal, that also means no formal steward team.
So that’s a delegation based on your status as Transitional Period Coordinator role, not as Steward, feel free to consult:
yu Bai (2026-04-01T03:27:22, Nervos Nation)
Replying to this message from Phroi (No DM):
BTW there is a clear conflict of interest:
the team responsible for reviewing the project and establishing acceptance criteria is the same team that developed itI would be surprised if the [Transitional Period…
There might be a few misunderstandings, but the logic here is as follows. Let me first introduce myself. I am Baiyu, the person in charge of this proposal. Because I am also the head of the eco fund, I was worried that my position as the person in charge might affect the proposal, so I haven’t discussed it much before.
yu Bai (2026-04-01T03:33:03, Nervos Nation)
Fisrt, DAO1.1The initial goal was to replace the existing voting tool without making any rule changes. If there was any change, it would be only one: bringing in a property steward team to assist in implementation according to the meta-rules. Before to this proposal,this is how DAO works: there is a three-person committee, and then Jacky handles daily tasks.But Jacky role is not very clear. And how he get paid for those work, who is he responsible for?
yu Bai (2026-04-01T03:35:20, Nervos Nation)
Then, my team put forward this proposal. As everyone knows, during the proposal process, a problem occurred with the voting statistics, which is precisely a technical issue with the existing platform.
yu Bai (2026-04-01T03:37:45, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-04-01T04:43:38)
Why is there a transition member? What are his responsibilities? As I understand it, because this proposal 1.1 has not yet taken effect, we cannot judge ourselves, so the old 1.0 needs to continue, hence the need for a transition merber appointed by the three-person committee
yu Bai (2026-04-01T03:39:08, Nervos Nation)
The current proposal is still under construction and has not yet come into effect, so any rules should be followed according to the old rules.
yu Bai (2026-04-01T03:42:11, Nervos Nation)
Furthermore, in my vision, even if this proposal passes, our team’s three-person property management team will not replace the existing three-person committee. Instead, The three of them, including myself, are more like handling the work that Jackie used to do, and the work that the transition committee is doing now. We don’t want to, and have no reason to, do what the three-person committee does.
yu Bai (2026-04-01T03:45:19, Nervos Nation)
Therefore, from beginning to end, in my mind, this proposal wasn’t about completely changing the existing system. I believe our team’s boundaries are defined by the proposal itself. Our idea was to switch to a different technology platform and improve the work of the person responsible for daily execution under the three-person committee.
yu Bai (2026-04-01T03:52:42, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-04-01T03:54:03)
Through recent discussions, I’ve noticed a lot of misunderstanding within the community regarding the boundaries of the work between the proposal team and our established steward team, leading to numerous assumptions. For example, our team initially wanted to know that, as the proposal team developing the new platform, after completion, we intended to deliver the code and have someone else deploy and maintain the platform. However, after discussions, I found no one could answer my questions. I told the team, “Okay, it’s certainly not easy for others to maintain it. We’ll continue investing and maintain it for a year first.” But in reality, we believe that after completion, we should deliver the code, and The community needs domain administrators, people to deploy and maintain the platform, and a mechanism to incentivize and monitor them. But we don’t have that now. Because we wrote the proposal and developed the code, we need to continue maintaining it. Since we both develop and control the servers, but we’re not a true three-person committee, it’s difficult to gain trust.
yu Bai (2026-04-01T03:58:04, Nervos Nation)
What I’m trying to say is that this proposal is just an attempt to make the community voting platform and the process for monitoring proposal milestones a little bit better, a small step forward, not a one-step solution. That’s why we’ve retained the three-person committee and haven’t pursued full automation of voting funding.
yu Bai (2026-04-01T04:00:55, Nervos Nation)
The initiative proposed by Phroi to check proposal team milestone deliverables highlights the shortcomings of the old system, which is what our proposal aims to address.
yu Bai (2026-04-01T04:14:30, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-04-01T04:45:53)
Developing such a complex system is no easy task, but we are willing to accept the challenges from the community. If there are any areas that don’t meet the delivery requirements, we will correct them. Therefore, after Phori raised the issue last time, the team immediately made changes. In fact, because of our passion and eagerness, we started researching even before the proposal was even submitted The team members have already invested a lot of effort and time; in fact, the development costs have long exceeded the budget. Of course, this is because we underestimated the difficulty when we wrote the proposal; it’s my fault, and I will take responsibility.I hope everyone can be more understanding as we work together to improve the community, little by little. For example, I had to use translation software to write this, so the English meaning might not be entirely accurate; I hope you can understand.
yu Bai (2026-04-01T04:21:42, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-04-01T04:27:01)
Replying to this message from yu Bai:
Fisrt, DAO1.1The initial goal was to replace the existing voting tool without making any rule changes. If there was any change, it would be only one: bringing in a property steward team to assist in implementation acc…
Of course, this was just my initial wish. However, during community discussions, we realized community thought that our proposal involved changes to meta-rules, so I decided to vote on it by metarule. Since it involved meta-rules changes, we also incorporated community feedback, such as adding stablecoin payments. I remember this was suggested by Phroi. Finally, I want to emphasize that although the vote is based on meta-rules, we only want to replace the technology platform and add a steward team. We don’t want to replace the three-person committee, operate the servers, manage the treasury, etc. We are simply a proposal team.
舟舟 tovarishch (2026-04-01T04:49:35, Nervos Nation)
Replying to this message from yu Bai:
Fisrt, DAO1.1The initial goal was to replace the existing voting tool without making any rule changes. If there was any change, it would be only one: bringing in a property steward team to assist in implementation acc…
An additional clarification on what Baiyu mentioned about rule changes: the V1.1 proposal was classified as a meta-rule change during the community discussion stage, and voted on under the meta-rule threshold (67% approval + 185,000,000 CKB quorum).
The proposal’s own framing is “an upgrade to the DAO’s operational rules and supporting infrastructure.”(paragraph 4, Section 1) So it does involve rule changes within the V1.0 framework, which is why it went through the meta-rule process.
Phroi (No DM) (2026-04-01T13:13:50, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-04-01T13:56:19)
Hey @baiyu2049 and @zz_tovarishch Thank you for adding an historical framing and for the effort your team invested in addressing the problem. I acknowledge the work done; That said, I must reiterate that the following concerns from the prior discussion remain unresolved:
-
The V1.1 proposal was introduced without prior consultation with the Community. A little thing like creating a post on Nervos Talk would have make things much smoother: a Nervos Talk pointing out the current issue, saying that your team had started to work on a proposal to address them and potentially indicating design choices being evaluated.
-
The V1.1 design contains several controversial design choices that were not adequately highlighted to the Community, including the voters whitelist, the prohibition on joining a vote with a newly created account after a vote has commenced, DID failing shorter of promised total decentralization.
-
The M0 technical documentation was / is insufficient; this was the primary material available to the Community for evaluating the design as it progressed.
-
The review process was conducted by the same team that developed the project, creating a conflict of interest; this is evident in the M0-M1 review.
-
There were miscommunications from the team representative indicating that the whitelist would be removed.
Again, I admire the effort and ingenuity in building this system, just there are issues that were not properly communicated
Phroi (No DM) (2026-04-01T19:00:29, Nervos Nation)
Replying to this message from yu Bai:
Of course, this was just my initial wish. However, during community discussions, we realized community thought that our proposal involved changes to meta-rules, so I decided to vote on it by metarule. Since it involve…
PS: thank you for clarifying this detail, still the issue is that an actual Operator will have to run this system and this comes with issues in itself:
-
Who will agree to become the Operator for such a complex system?
-
Whoever Operator agrees, he will have arbitrary power to control who votes and who doesn’t due to whitelists inclusion into its design
-
Let’s assume Operator is not malicious, what happens if this infra get corrupted by a cyberattack and a malicious actor silently takes control of it?
Attack example: deny proof of inclusion in whitelist during vote, undetectable even by an hypothetical auditor tool. This can easily lead to malicious takeover of Community DAO funds.
That’s why centralized systems are so dangerous, especially when applied to voting
yu Bai (2026-04-02T04:22:23, Nervos Nation)
Replying to this message from Phroi (No DM):
Hey @baiyu2049 and @zz_tovarishch
Regarding problem 1: The proposal completed a full discussion process + multiple AMAs with the community, the proposal team also voluntarily extended a month so the community have time to discuss in more details, the feedback from the community has also been included. Actually, Phroi had contributed a lot to the feedback to the v1.1 proposal during that time.
yu Bai (2026-04-02T04:23:51, Nervos Nation)
Replying to this message from Phroi (No DM):
PS: thank you for clarifying this detail, still the issue is that an actual Operator will have to run this system and this comes with issues in itself:
- Who will agree to become the Operator for such a complex s…
Regarding problem 2: The problem with the so-called “whitelist” has been discussed extensively on Talk, the team has also prepared a detailed documentation of the voting system design, we’ll not reiterate everything here, we welcome the community to examine the trade-offs and participate in public discussions on Nervos Talk. The first explanation happened at Jan.29.
yu Bai (2026-04-02T04:28:28, Nervos Nation)
In fact, if we look at the existing platform’s technical solutions, that’s true decentralization, and it’s largely unverifiable. For example, the last proposal vote had problems; the voting platform couldn’t provide verifiable voting data, and ultimately, data exported from server logs was used as evidence. However, the credibility of the server data relied on the endorsement of a three-person committee. If the person who cheated hadn’t admitted it, the matter would have been difficult to resolve. As I’ve said before, the new system won’t achieve fully decentralized voting on the blockchain right away. Our design principle prioritizes ensuring data availability on the blockchain and independent verification by the community. In my view, this trade-off is necessary for gradual iteration。This version isn’t the most ideal, but it’s at least much better than the old system and is readily available for us.
yu Bai (2026-04-02T04:29:55, Nervos Nation)
Replying to this message from Phroi (No DM):
Hey @baiyu2049 and @zz_tovarishch
Regarding problem 3: The payout condition for M0 of this project is “Milestone 0 (Project Kick-off) (10% of total budget) Payment Trigger: Upon the approval of this proposal by the community.” It follows the rules of DAO1.0.
yu Bai (2026-04-02T04:32:53, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-04-02T04:33:32)
Replying to this message from Phroi (No DM):
Hey @baiyu2049 and @zz_tovarishch
Regarding problem 4: The report of M1 was published on Talk to gather community feedback, after there are no objections the Committee executed the payout, this IS the process of DAO v1.0, there are no such thing as “the same team evaluated the results themselves”. Our proposal is currently proceeding according to the existing rules. The steward team established by our proposal team is only a pre-planned entity and currently has no authority. Their current task is to communicate the content of this proposal with the community. In the future, each of them will receive a monthly subsidy of $500 USD for one year; this was done through open recruitment.
yu Bai (2026-04-02T04:34:31, Nervos Nation)
Replying to this message from Phroi (No DM):
Hey @baiyu2049 and @zz_tovarishch
Regarding problem 5: We acknowledge the fact that we had some miscommunications at the beginning of this situation, but we also want to point out that after that, all of the core team have been trying to reply to each and every message scattered around social channels and Nervos Talk. Again, the whitelist discussion has already happened on Nervos Talk, we’d like every community member to present their concerns and suggestions there to minimize the miscommunication issue.
yu Bai (2026-04-02T04:36:26, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-04-02T07:03:25)
We will publish a detailed report this week related to all of the arguments we have seen on Talk and other channels, so every community member has a complete view of what have been discussed and what are left to decide.
yu Bai (2026-04-02T04:40:48, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-04-02T04:41:17)
Replying to this message from Phroi (No DM):
PS: thank you for clarifying this detail, still the issue is that an actual Operator will have to run this system and this comes with issues in itself:
- Who will agree to become the Operator for such a complex s…
I think these three questions are basically repetitions of the questions above and previous concerns, and my two previous answers have already been very clear. I want to reiterate my considerations as the project leader. First, this platform prioritizes independent verification by the community, as there is indeed a possibility of cheating by the server operators. Second, my initial plan was for the server to be maintained by a three-person committee or a trusted party in the community, with our team simply delivering the code. Third, even if the voting is manipulated, aside from being independently verifiable afterward, the funding process is currently manual, requiring the property management team to notify the three-person committee to make the payment. This system is only an iterative version, not a one-step solution system from the start.
Phroi (No DM) (2026-04-02T07:14:10, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-04-02T07:45:29)
Replying to this message from yu Bai:
Regarding problem 5: We acknowledge the fact that we had some miscommunications at the beginning of this situation, but we also want to point out that after that, all of the core team have been trying to reply to each…
For example, how about my review confirming about the removal status of Whitelist on Nervos Talk on 7 March?
Before 7 March, the last word I got from your representative was that whitelists would be removed.
Not only this 7 March review went unanswered, the team also rushed an announcement on Nervos Talk for a launch on March 16 without first replying to my Nervos Talk review.
The situation only changed after I published a full Code Review fully analyzing codebase and documenting its issues.
yu Bai (2026-04-02T07:34:10, Nervos Nation)
Replying to this message from Phroi (No DM):
For example, how about my review confirming about the removal status of Whitelist on Nervos Talk on 7 March?
Before 7 March, the last word I got from your representative was that whitelists would be removed.
…
Yeah, this is indeed a communication failure on our part. Haoyang and David both responded to you on the forum, explaining the situation and apologizing. I want to clarify that the main reason we didn’t respond to your suggestion was due to internal team reasons such as the Chinese New Year holiday; it wasn’t because we didn’t want to communicate with the community, nor was it to hastily announce the launch. We also announced a one-month extension of the public testing period starting from the 16th.Thank you again for the audit on the 16th, which made our proposal team’s work even more complete. Love and Peace
Matt (2026-04-09T06:54:28, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-04-09T07:08:03)
Can someone create a poll for the current dao v1.1 implementation?
Yes
No
Don’t know/care
JackyLHH (2026-04-09T07:05:08, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-04-09T07:18:54)
Poll for CKB Community Fund DAO
- Yes: 18 votes
- No: 9 votes
- Don’t know/care: 6 votes
Total voters: 33
Status: open
Phroi (No DM) (2026-04-13T04:44:48, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-04-13T08:28:41)
舟舟 tovarishch (2026-04-14T00:43:17, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-04-14T02:14:12)
Terry (DAO Committee member) shared his observations on the V1.1 situation on Nervos Talk.
Phill | Phillip.bit (never DM, always in public) (2026-04-14T01:16:05, Nervos Nation, edited 2026-04-14T01:17:07)
Replying to this message from 舟舟 tovarishch:
Terry (DAO Committee member) shared his observations on the V1.1 situation on Nervos Talk.
Pretty good assessment of the state of affairs. I agree with Terry here. The improvements are a step in the right direction but you do want these early steps to be taken together. Difference of opinion and conflicting ideas are a good thing and should lead to a more complete system long term.