[DIS] Community Fund DAO v1.1 Web5 优化提案/ Community Fund DAO v1.1 Web5 Optimization Proposal

[phroi]

Proposal is discursive, here a GPT-5 summary, please read the original edit #1 for details:

• Problem: DAO v1.0 has operational fragility, fragmented tooling, weak oversight, poor info dissemination, and no post‑project learning, causing low execution quality despite democratic decisions.

• Goal: Keep v1.0 voting/meta‑rules unchanged while funding a service+tooling upgrade (DAO v1.1) to improve execution, transparency, and participation.

• Core asks (what they want funded):

  • Establish a professional procedural team called DAO Stewards (neutral facilitators, no decision/voting power, verify milestones, run AMAs, publish reports, manage dashboards).
  • Build a unified Web5 governance platform (did:ckb identity, integrated discussion→voting→oversight→treasury, public dashboards, milestone workflows).

• Treasury/process changes:

  • Two‑tier treasury: Tier 1 = main DAO multi‑sig (unchanged) → transfers full project budget to Tier 2 = per‑project 2/3 multi‑sig execution wallet (2 Steward reps + 1 community observer).
  • Staged payments: initial startup ≤ 20% of budget and ≤ $10k, then milestone payments released after Steward verification + a 3‑day “optimistic” quick confirmation vote (default pass unless veto meets thresholds). Veto triggers emergency review, full vote, 30‑day rectification, then a 7‑day “pessimistic” final ruling vote.

• Governance rules preserved:

  • Voting weight, proposer eligibility, and adoption thresholds remain the same as v1.0 (e.g., proposer must hold ≥100,000 CKB; budget proposals require FOR ≥51% and turnout ≥3×budget).

• Team & timeline:

  • Core team: Baiyu (advisor), Yixiu (PM/test), Zhouzhou (ops), David (dev); Eco Fund bootstraps initial Stewards.
  • Milestones: M0 kickoff (1 month), M1 MVP (2 months, target CKCon 2025), M2 mainnet & trial (2 months), M3 12‑month Stewards operation.

• Budget: $100,000 USD (in CKB) total:

  • Development $72k, Stewards operations (12 months) $18k, Infrastructure $10k.
  • Disbursed by milestone: $10k / $52k / $20k / $18k.

• Accountability & transitions:

  • Stewards publish quarterly reports; community can call no‑confidence votes; after 1 year steward positions become elected, terms = 6 months.

• Rationale: Framing the request as a Budget Request Proposal (not a meta‑rule change) to buy services/tools that reduce hidden participation costs, manage risk, and create public Web5 infrastructure and sovereign governance data.

USD Denominated Amounts

As noted previously there are already meta-rule changes in this proposal, so this is not just a Budget Request Proposal, but already a real Meta-Rule change proposal.

Why not also address directly the question of payment in USD denominated amounts?

As you are well aware, this is one of the road blockers of CommunityDAO adoption from developers.

Treasury funds don’t even need to be converted into USD, the value of CKB granted just need to match the USD value of the milestone. Feel free to take inspiration from this previous suggestion:

@phroi

An Alternative Funding System

While replying to @jm9k, I realized that actually there is an easy way to offset CKB volatility without messing up the Community DAO funding logic.

Funding Expenditure

Project expresses intended expenditure as a single asset or as a mix of multiple assets.

For example, a project baked by a Chinese team for a bridge between Ethereum and Nervos L1 could express its funding expenditure as a mix of CNY, CKB and ETH.

For example, just throwing some numbers around it could be:

• 700k CNY (~ 100k USD)
• 120k CKB
• 2 ETH

CKB Allocation Request

Project requires the current value in CKB of the Funding Expenditure multiplied by a certain safe-multiplier SM, which up to the project, based on expected timelines and perceived volatility risks.

The idea is that, even if CKB price plummets, the project has the necessary funding for reaching its goal.

For example:

• Value(700k CNY + 120k CKB + 2 ETH) = 7.2M CKB
• SM = 0.01465/0.00677 = 2.2 (Today CKB price divided by the three months low)
• AllocationRequest = 2.2 * 7.2M CKB = 16M CKB

Voting

As usual voting happens on the CKB Allocation Request, but with the added clause that the extracted value must not be in excess of Funding Expenditure.

A successful vote sets apart Allocation Request CKB from Community DAO fund to be used by the project, so it’s a form of funding guarantee.

Milestones

Milestones are defined with goals to reach and request of assets. Payments happen always and only in CKB.

For example:

• Milestone: Project deploys on testnet.
• Requested assets: 350k CNY (~50k USD)
• Payments could happen in blocks of 100k CKB
• Value(350k CNY) = 3380499 CKB
• Community DAO sends 3.4M CKB to the project.
• Project extracts 350k CNY of value.
• Project documents final conversion rate incurred (inclusive of fees, possibly capped at 6%), involved amounts and excess of CKB (received but not spent).
• Committee double check conversion rates: if the conversion rates are reasonable, no proof is necessary. Then again this is a trust based system, so if any member of the Community DAO committee feels this trust has been violated by a project, the committee has the authority to challenge conversion rates and hold further payments until an agreement is reached.

Project Completion

At project completion any excess of CKB balance held by the project is refunded back to the Community DAO.

Remaining CKB Allocation Request is released back to Community DAO, now free to be requested by other projects.

Missing iCKB Mention

Given that this is already a real Meta-Rule change proposal, iCKB exists and it’s a fully community-owned project, what’s the reasoning for not integrate it for voting and/or storing treasury value?

If for any reason, you consider even marginally iCKB unsafe I can make a second audit with Trails of Bits funded by CommunityDAO. Last quote from them was 160k USD, so same ballpark cost as this current proposal.

Love & Peace, Phroi