I’m saying that a biography written for Nervos before it was really successful is hardly convincing, not that you’re writing an autobiography.
1 Like
Maybe the foundation needs some more emotionally stable members.
Please refrain from personal attacks
Totally Disagree.
How much did it cost to produce the whitepaper and bluepaper for ETH? What is your purpose in writing a book? A person who truly loves a project and its community will selflessly explain their understanding to others with a spirit of dedication. If you really love CKB, you should write the book first instead of treating it as a job and expecting CKB to pay you for it. This changes the nature of your motivation from love to money-seeking. If you write the book first and everyone thinks it’s great, then naturally people will donate money because they recognize that you have made a contribution by helping others understand more about the CKB project.
By the way, the number of your book catalog is wrong.
4 Likes
That was very unclear because just as it is obvious that it isnt a personal biography, it is obviously not a biography for Nervos either
-
I don’t have those numbers on the whitepaper. But those numbers wouldn’t mean much because a textbook intended for the classroom and a whitepaper aren’t very comparable.
-
My purpose was stated in the proposal: I believe it will be impactful in a variety of ways which, again, are elaborated in proposal.
-
If this is your philosophy, I assume you want to abolish the whole DAO? Because the purpose of the DAO is to give people the capital to do things for the ecosystem. Whether a book, a dapp, or something else entirely, large projects take time. You think I should be willing to spend the estimated ~800 hours to write the book without any compensation out of love for a project? That’s a completely unreasonable claim to make. Do not attempt to morally shame me for wanting to be compensated for a task that would take that many hours; no rational human being would do such a thing unless already had everything they needed for themselves & their family.
3.5: You are using a false dichotomy when you say that it changes motivation from “love” to “money-seeking”. The two are not exclusive; I “love” to write code, but I wouldn’t spend my days writing code for free if I can get paid to do it. Absolutely I will be seeking compensation for any non-trivial work I do. Why? Because it costs me something (opportunity cost: I choose to do this over an alternative revenue producing activity… Labor: I choose to spend my finite time on Earth to do this as opposed to anything else).
3.75: " If you write the book first and everyone thinks it’s great, then naturally people will donate money" – again, this can be applied to everything, whether it is a book, a dapp, etc. The logical conclusion of this way of thinking is that you believe nobody should be applying for grants. And again, this opinion is not economically rational: If a producer of a good does not have a signal of the way consumers of said good will value their output, then they cannot effectively plan, nor effectively allocate resources. More information = better ability to maximize output
- Yes, you’re right. I missed chapter 8. Thank you for your constructive feedback.
I’ll conclude with: you must have missed the comment I made three hours before you posted yours, when I said I am halting this proposal in favor of building a dapp that community members here - and in private - have requested of me. In the spirit of “love” of the community and willingness to listen, I am happy to pivot towards dapp development.
Cheers
maybe you can finish at least some chapters first to find out whether is it useful for attracting developers.
1 Like
My main goal is to protect my own investments, and my attitude towards funds within the DAO is that they should be spent in valuable areas.
What concerns me is whether as a former member of the foundation, the significant project investments made by the foundation, such as the Grand project and other budget allocations, were handled in the same manner. Today, the bold and unabashed project proposal and budget you have put forward in the DAO, along with the arrogant dismissal of anyone questioning it, reveals how careless the foundation has been in budgeting for previous projects. This project seems to be just like your previous project, Tempest, with no clear direction and solely aimed at making money. After the character profile provided by Nervos on November 3rd last year, you suddenly halted your project and now seem to be leveraging the fact that Nervos has already promoted you to put pressure on the Nervos Foundation for funding?
What I am even more concerned about is whether this is how you reviewed projects when you were a member of the foundation. The question is, where is the value of these projects? What is the position of this project within the system? Is there no overall plan, but rather arbitrary pricing and basic mistakes without anyone criticizing them? Was there any preliminary review of the projects? Was there no standard template? Was there a professional review conducted by a business expert group? Were professional opinions provided? Was there a budget committee for voting? Was there anyone responsible for evaluating the project’s returns? Was there an assessment of its economic, social, and community benefits? Who takes responsibility for project failures? And of course, there seems to be no horizontal or vertical benchmarking of projects (getting the work done while minimizing expenses)? Is there anyone accountable for budget expenditures, in other words, individual responsibility? There seems to be a complete lack of project assessment before and after. Also, it’s worth mentioning that the backward evaluation score of your Tempest project basically puts you in the category of “your words are empty air,” with all your proposals being placed at the bottom of the priority list, and your supporters being treated the same way.
When I was young, I spent a few years on the budget management committee at another company (an Olympic sponsor). The role was simply that of a guarddog, specifically keeping an eye on things and biting the rats.
DAO is meaningful, and its greatest significance is that someone like me, who you perceive as someone who “only talks but doesn’t contribute,” can speak out here, express opinions directly, and protect their investments.
Finally, it is also essential for me to speak up for “Wanbeige” (the nickname of an individual), even though he is struggling to make ends meet due to his investment in CKB. He still holds dreams for the English-speaking community’s prosperity and the future of CKB. I didn’t initially intend to speak up, but if I don’t step forward, who will protect their interests? I need to protect the interests of all investors!
9 Likes
Hey, thanks for explaining this to me. I feel I can better address the comments you make here than the ones in your previous post, since the ones in your previous post seemed contradictory. They still seem that way to me, but this post of yours gives me a much better understanding of your perspective.
First, I agree that the funds should be spent in valuable areas. I also believe that you know things I don’t, and that I know things that you don’t. Because of the information available to me, I believed this to be a valuable proposal. But the purpose of having a proposal in the DIScussion phase is that I can gather information from others 
. What you think is valuable and what I think is valuable are different. Ultimately, we want the same thing (sustainable growth of the value locked in the network). But our beliefs about the way to achieve that will differ. That’s okay!
There’s a lot to unpack in your reply, so I’ll split it up into components and address one by one.
Note that there were many suggestions about the proposed cost as well as proposed pivots. For each suggestion someone gave, I thought about it sincerely and then gave my feedback. If my feedback reads as arrogant, then I’m sorry to have not communicated as effectively as I apparently could have. However, note that you do not mention once here the blatantly antagonistic replies to my proposal. Your reply is very thorough, so I assume you’ve mentioned everything you believe is worth mentioning. The conclusion is that you believe that I, as the proposal author, ought to receive openly antagonistic heckling with a smile.
Next, you make a massive logical leap that results in an unfair assessment of both me and the foundation:
- My proposal is bold and unabashed
- So you conclude the foundation was careless in budgeting for previous projects
You lack the context in which this proposal arose: In the community telegram group, I put forth a variety of ideas I thought were useful for the community. I then asked people which one they thought would be the best. Community members and foundation members suggested I pursue the textbook. I did not come in here “guns blazing” without forethought.
Second, you’ve noted above that you find my way of communicating to include “arrogant dismissal” of people who disagree with me. What you see as arrogant dismissal is neither arrogant nor dismissive, but it is disagreeable… In that I do tend to disagree with many things other people say LOL. But if you read my responses, I always provide a reason behind my disagreement. This invites the other party to continue in the debate with the ultimate goal of reaching a consensus. The act of thoughtfully dissecting and reasoning through other peoples’, then working to articulate each counter argument is very different from being dismissive. In fact, some might say that a dismissive person would do the opposite of what I’m doing in my replies.
So, if you want to make an inference on how I was at the foundation, then look at the thoughtfulness with which I evaluate your antagonistic and personally offensive replies and conclude that I was at least as thorough in any sort of evaluation of other projects (by the way, there were only very few projects in the ecosystem at the time I was at the foundation; I only reviewed one or two of them, and those whom I reviewed have provided continuous value to the ecosystem even now, years later).
I reviewed technical aspects of the few projects that were assigned to review while at the foundation. In some cases, I approved that they hit their milestones and in other cases I did not due to issues with quality in certain areas. In terms of business level value, that was a different team and I can’t speak to that. All I know is that I was effective in quality control when I was assigned as the reviewer. Again, I cannot speak to the questions you’re asking about more holistic level, strategic evaluation. But I do think that’s an important question to be asking and I do agree such evaluation of a project ought to take place, absolutely!
This is the sort of comment that, yes, is hard to react to in a level-headed manner. I’m a human being and I - along with other teammates - poured massive amounts of resources into Tempest because we had commitments from others that we would receive assistance. Rather than wait for external capital, we wanted to do our best to stick to timelines and deliver as best we could. I’ll be clear: Tempest was NOT solely aimed at making money. It was the culmination of years of analyzing technical details of blockchain systems, speaking to top technical experts in the field for feedback. Yes, we did go through a fundraising round to bring in capita so we could stay afloat, but certainly that’s not why you’re saying our sole aim was to make money.
It is also hurtful to me to read that someone in the community believe I simply “suddenly halted my project” and now am trying to use Nervos’s past promotion as leverage. It is not an easy choice to close the doors on a startup; especially after hiring good and kind people who shared the same vision. In fact it is severely emotionally taxing. But we had no choice because secondary effects of major market events caused a chain reaction resulting investors rescinding their commitments 
.
I do agree partially here. We weren’t able to ship something before our capital dried up, which really sucks. We did have some pretty hefty open source codebases that demonstrated strong progress, but we weren’t able to ship a part of the protocol to production prior to closing our doors. This is an extremely embarrassing and disappointing fact. Though I don’t think my words deserve to be classified as “empty air”. That’s pretty offensive.
I don’t perceive you as unimportant. Anyone offering thoughtful feedback, even if I vehemently disagree with it, is important here. I 100% agree that the DAO’s ability to put different parties in direct contact and discourse is crucial to a DAO’s success.
I’ll end with this snippet, because it’s the easiest to agree with since it attacks me the least LOL. This is an important role in any organization, and I am glad you are showing up here in an effort to protect those who need protecting. I only wish that you’d not condemn me as a malicious actor with such severity, and that you can understand the perspective I’ve tried to share here in this response.
4 Likes
Glad to see so many of you expressing opinions here, which is a positive sign that the CKB Community Fund DAO’s marketing efforts are making some progress.
However, I’d like to point out that Tannr has already made it clear that he will not proceed with this particular proposal. While it’s still valid to share your personal opinions on this proposal, it’s important to maintain a rational and friendly discussion focusing on the proposal itself, rather than resorting to personal attacks. Let’s keep the conversation constructive and respectful. Thanks.
4 Likes
$165,000, how dare you ask for that amount? The current price of CKB is 0.004, and my investment cost was 0.02. Are you sure you want to write a development manual for $825,000, waiting for it to reach my cost price? Is the foundation now your ATM machine?
A.) the proposal has been closed already, he plans on another route
B.) nobody cares what your investment cost was. That’s not how the math works.
Yeah I saw that comment. I love the Chinese community. But you sound more like a disgruntled investor who bought the top and now has the lash out on productive members
(His deleted post was something along the lines of accusing me of not liking the Chinese community because I told him his buy price is irrelevant)
You’re not going to build much credibility here trying to gaslight people.
I see your comments stating that Matt agrees with this proposal and that opposing the proposal is equivalent to opposing Matt and the foundation. Can you please explain what you mean?
1 Like
Incorrect assessment of the situation yet again. The concern was that proposal wasn’t aligned with the foundation so Tanner made a rhetorical point that it was in favor with Matt, so the concerned person was going against their own logic.
Try harder if you want to play politics
By the way, addressing your deleted post even further, I don’t see us as American vs Chinese. I see us all as one community. It really sounds like you are the one with the problem here.
If I’m not particularly stupid to the point of misunderstanding his intent, I think he’s making an analogy that you or tannr think opposing the proposal equals opposing Matt equals opposing the foundation, which is like you not caring about his loss equals not caring about the Chinese community. He’s not accusing you of creating racial antagonism, although you do have a relevant and unsavory history.
“He’s not accusing you of creating racial antagonism”
You must have missed his deleted comment where he said exactly that.
I can see the revision history, and I can see the marks of your repeated revisions to a paragraph. But I really think you misunderstood him. Maybe you should be sarcastic before you really understand someone.