持续问答更新 (截至 2025年9月5日)
大家好，
感谢大家对 DAO v1.1 提案的热情参与和富有洞察力的问题。
本着完全透明的精神，并确保所有人都能获得对称的信息，我们将在这里不定期地发布在主帖中出现的、关乎治理核心原则、需要社区集体智慧的关键问题，以及我们在 Nervos Talk 之外收到的重要问题汇总。在为期7天的讨论期内，我们都将持续这样做。
问题一：我同意 DAO 需要变革，但是否有必要同时推进两个不同的方案（v1.1 和 v2.0）？这难道不是在分裂社区，而不是共同寻找一个统一的解决方案吗？
回答一： 这是一个非常公正且重要的问题。我们的意图绝不是要分裂社区，而是为 DAO 如何演进提供一个清晰的、哲学上不同的选择。
v2.0 提案是一场革命，一次旨在建立委托代议制民主模式的宪法级变革。而 v1.1 提案是一次演进，一个旨在通过构建工具和服务来赋能现有直接民主框架的预算申请。
正如 Jordan 本人富有建设性地指出的，拥有“多种路径探索”和“不把所有鸡蛋放在一个篮子里”，是一个健康的去中心化生态系统的标志。我们认为这赋予了社区一次有意义的选择，这是一种优势，而非劣势。此外，我们的 v1.1 提案本质上是关于工具和服务的，它可以被任何未来的治理体系所继承和融合，是一次无损的升级。
问题二：当初在讨论 DAO 2.0 的时候，并没有提及 v1.1 的计划。为什么这个提案现在才出现？
回答二： v1.1 提案是近期才有的进展，并非一个我们当时有所保留的、早已存在的计划。它从我们内部讨论中快速演化而来，并且在很大程度上是受到了 v2.0 提案发布后社区宝贵反馈的启发。我们由衷地感谢 v2.0 团队在其提案中付出的巨大努力，他们深入的研究和思考既富有洞察力，又极具启发性。
正是在这个过程中，我们看到了社区中存在着一种声音，希望有一条更务实的、演进式的路径来解决 v1.0 当前的运营问题，我们感到有责任为此提供一个具体的方案来回应这一特定需求。
问题三：（
需社区智慧）提案包含了看起来是明确的元规则修改。为了保证程序的完整性，它难道不应该遵循更高的投票门槛吗？
回答三： 这是一个根本性的、至关重要的问题，最好的回答是回归我们 DAO 治理文件的第一性原则。
v1.0 的规则清晰地区分了 “元规则（我们的宪法）” ，即定义投票者基本权利和权力的规则（如投票权重、通过条件等），和 “运营规则（我们的执行法规）” ，即规定日常程序的规则（如“7天+30赞”流程）。
我们团队的观点是，v1.1 提案是一份 “项目合同” ，旨在申请预算来升级 DAO 的运营规则（执行法规）。提案中的新流程，如30天审议期和里程碑投票，是这项升级服务的功能特性，它们并未改变定义 DAO 核心权力结构的宪法级元规则。
然而，我们承认这是一个关键的解读。社区对于如何为这个提案分类的共识，比我们自己的看法更重要。 我们非常鼓励大家就这一区别分享您的观点。我们会虚心听取，并尊重最终形成的社区共识。
希望这些解答对大家有帮助。我们非常鼓励大家继续在这个帖子下进行公开讨论，每个人的声音都很重要！
Ongoing Q&A Update (As of Sept 5, 2025)
Hello everyone,
Thank you for the incredible engagement and thoughtful questions we’ve received on the DAO v1.1 proposal.
In the spirit of full transparency and to ensure everyone has access to the same information, we will periodically post a summary of significant questions that arise in the main thread, especially those that concern core governance principles and need the community’s collective wisdom, or questions not within Nervos Talk we’ve received. We will continue to do this throughout the 7-day discussion period.
Q1: I agree that the DAO needs a change, but was it necessary to have two different proposals (v1.1 and v2.0)? Doesn’t this divide the community instead of working on one solution together?
A1: That’s a very fair and important concern. Our intention is absolutely not to divide, but rather to provide a clear and different philosophical choice for how the DAO can evolve.
V2.0 proposal is a revolution, a constitutional change to a delegated democracy model. The v1.1 proposal is an evolution, a budget request to build tools and services that empower the existing direct democracy framework.
As Jordan himself constructively noted, having “multiple avenues” and “not putting all our eggs in one basket” is a sign of a healthy, decentralized ecosystem. We see this as giving the community a meaningful choice, which is a strength, not a weakness. Furthermore, our v1.1 proposal is fundamentally about tools and services that can be inherited and integrated by any future governance system, making it a non-destructive upgrade.
Q2: When the DAO 2.0 effort was being discussed, there was no mention of a v1.1 plan. Why is this proposal coming out now?
A2: The v1.1 proposal is a recent development and was not a pre-existing plan we held back on. It evolved quite quickly from our internal discussions and was greatly informed by the valuable community feedback that followed the v2.0 proposal. We truly appreciate all the effort the v2.0 team put into their proposal; the depth of their research and thinking is both insightful and inspiring.
It was through that process that we saw a clear desire from the community for a pragmatic, evolutionary path to solve the immediate operational issues of v1.0, and we felt it was our responsibility to offer a concrete proposal to address that specific need.
Q3: ( Community Wisdom Needed) Your proposal contains what appear to be clear meta-rule changes. Shouldn’t it be subject to the higher voting threshold to ensure process integrity?
A3: This is a fundamental and crucial question that is best addressed by returning to the first principles of our DAO’s governing document.
The v1.0 Rules establish a clear distinction between meta-rules (our Constitution), which define the fundamental rights and powers of voters (e.g., voting weights, adoption conditions), and operational rules (our Bylaws), which govern day-to-day procedures (e.g., the “7 days + 30 likes” step).
Our team’s view is that the v1.1 proposal is a “project contract” asking for a budget to upgrade the DAO’s operational rules (Bylaws). The new processes, like the 30-day review and milestone votes, are features of this upgraded service. They do not alter the constitutional meta-rules that define the core power structure of the DAO.
However, we acknowledge this is a key interpretation. The community’s consensus on how to classify this proposal is more important than our own view. We strongly encourage everyone to share their perspective on this distinction. We are here to listen and will respect the consensus that emerges from this discussion.
We hope this is helpful. We strongly encourage everyone to continue the discussion publicly in this thread. Every voice matters!