Thank you for sharing this.
From the perspective of Ecosystem and Business Development at the Foundation, my position is to support this proposal.
Let me be clear: without this basic key INFRA, developing the ecosystem, onboarding partners and users is really hard.
I encourage that anyone with doubts look at the video posted before this answer, and if still have doubts, I’d love to know the rationale behind it!
教主，保重！ 
Rosen Bridge 提案投票现已结束
初步结果：通过（赞成率：64.11%，总投票权重：515,967,370 CKB）
接下来，我将使用 CKB DAO Watchdog 进行投票后验证，将 Metaforo 记录的投票权重与链上 Nervos DAO 的存款权重进行交叉核对，并进行人工核查。我将把验证日志提交给委员会，以便最终确认结果是否符合流程要求。
Rosen Bridge Proposal Voting has now closed
Preliminary outcome: PASSED (Approval: 64.11%, Total voting weight: 515,967,370 CKB).
Next, I will run a post-close verification using CKB DAO Watchdog to cross-check Metaforo-recorded voting weights against on-chain Nervos DAO deposit weights, along with a manual check. I will share the verification logs with the committee for final confirmation of whether the result is valid per the process.
Congratulations @phroi @jm9k and @Alive24
A bridge was always going to be a hard one to get through, but I think it’s worthwhile and will be another piece to the puzzle that we need.
Rosen Bridge Voting Verification Announcement
Based on the Metaforo tally at close, the outcome is PASSED. Approval is 64.11% with total voting weight 515,967,370 CKB (Yes 330,802,578, No 185,164,792).
Post-close verification has been completed using CKB DAO Watchdog at 20260117_080427 (UTC+8), together with a manual sanity check. The verification cross-checks Metaforo-recorded voting weights against on-chain Nervos DAO deposit weights. In this run, all entries match except one flagged account on each side, and both are undercount cases where the on-chain weight is higher than the Metaforo-recorded weight, consistent with post-vote updates to bound addresses and/or DAO deposits. There is no indication of weight inflation or double-counting in this run. Even if the on-chain differences are included, the approval remains 64.08%, so the pass/fail outcome does not change.
Committee confirmation: for process consistency, the final tally is the Metaforo-recorded weights at the time the vote closed. Therefore, the Rosen Bridge proposal is confirmed as PASSED based on the Metaforo tally at close.
Verification logs: ckb-dao-watchdog/Verification Logs - Rosen Bridge Vote at main · kydchen/ckb-dao-watchdog · GitHub
Thanks to @yixiu.ckbfans.bit for building the Watchdog tool, and to @Hanssen for additional support.
Rosen Bridge 投票核验公告
根据 Metaforo 在投票截止时的统计结果，本次投票结果为通过。赞成率 64.11%，总投票权重 515,967,370 CKB（Yes 330,802,578，No 185,164,792）。
投票结束后，我们在 20260117_080427（UTC+8） 使用 CKB DAO Watchdog 完成了核验，并配合进行了人工交叉核验。核验内容为对照 Metaforo 记录的投票权重 与 链上 Nervos DAO 存款对应的权重。本次核验中，除正反两边各有 1 个账号被标记外，其余记录均一致。两处标记均属于 欠算情况，即链上权重高于 Metaforo 记录权重，符合投票后地址绑定更新及或 DAO 存款变化的现象。本次核验未发现权重膨胀或重复计权的迹象。即便将链上差值纳入计算，赞成率仍为 64.08%，不影响通过或不通过的结论。
委员会确认：为保持流程一致性，本次最终结果以投票截止时 Metaforo 记录的权重为准。因此，Rosen Bridge 提案确认通过。
核验日志：ckb-dao-watchdog/Verification Logs - Rosen Bridge Vote at main · kydchen/ckb-dao-watchdog · GitHub
感谢 @yixiu.ckbfans.bit 开发 Watchdog 工具，也感谢 @Hanssen 的协助支持。
Hooray!! Glad this stressful vote has come to an official end 
Back to coding,
Phroi
PS: for a meta discussion about this vote: Some questions about the recent proposal vote
随着这个桥的完成，当我们发现，桥建好了，什么都没有发生，没有什么有益的事情在ckb上面因为rosen bridge这个桥的建立而产生，唯一真实发生的就是，ckb的dao资金真实划拨给了那几位开发者，那么投赞成票里面哪一位应该对此负责？
我感受到一种害怕，多数立场者，利益是一致的，他们的投票可以很容易的决定投票的走向，比如对于这个提案，我恶意的猜测，国外友人他们都是认识的，并且熟悉的，他们不需要对于这个提案的失败负责，毕竟大家是一起投票的
规则就是这样，这个提案在规则下通过了，就应该生效。兄弟，如果你反对的话，也应该遵守规则。
教主你可以对规则提出更好的改进建议，让大家支持你，使得DAO更好，我个人认为这是我们大家现在应该做的。
而且现在有专业的DAO物业团队在负责，我想他们会更用心的守护每个DAO里面的CKB的。
尊重不同意见也是一种成长。
尊重事务发展的螺旋上升规律。
The technical assessment for CKB integration into Rosen Bridge is under internal review, but I wanted to share an early sneak peek. Some highlights:
Signing approach: the DIS proposed on-chain multisig, but we’re leaning toward ECDSA TSS: the same signing and key rotation setup already used for Bitcoin, Ethereum, Doge, and Binance. CKB’s default lock accepts the standard ECDSA signature that TSS produces, and security is the same: TSS still needs M-of-N guards to cooperate before a signature can be created. Both approaches are covered in the detailed comparison. Similarly, we postponed CKB’s Quantum Resistant Lock: no other Rosen chain uses quantum-resistant signing, so protecting only CKB would not make the bridge safer as a whole.
Token bridgeability: native CKB, sUDT, and xUDT (no active extensions). Tokens whose issuer can freeze or clawback funds are excluded. @Jnr6 asked why Rosen Bridge won’t support USDT, so here’s a concrete example. USDi’s issuer can freeze specific addresses. If they froze the bridge address (say, for regulatory reasons), the USDi held by the bridge on CKB would be stuck. Since rsUSDi on other chains is backed by that USDi, it would lose its backing, depeg, and become worthless. A user who bridged 1000 USDi from CKB to Cardano would be left holding 1000 rsUSDi worth nothing. That’s why Rosen Bridge excludes these tokens entirely.
Confirmation policy: 50 blocks, matching CCC’s default and double the RGB++ security analysis (building on Ren Zhang’s work) recommendation for extra safety:
assuming that the adversary’s Hash rate accounts for 30%, CKB would need to maintain a 2.5% orphan block rate and require 23.29 confirmations to match the security of 6 confirmations on Bitcoin with a 0% orphan rate
The full plan is at sonami-tech/rosen-bridge-ckb-integration 
For any questions, doubts, or feedback: we’re here!!
Phroi
PS: We have an upcoming Reddit AMA on March 11th, Feel free to drop your questions over there too!
