Hi knmo,
Thank you for this deep and insightful feedback. Seriously, this is exactly the kind of constructive thinking that will make our DAO stronger.
1. On “Deconstructive Inactions” (like project stalls):
You’ve identified a genuine blind spot in our current rules, thank you! You are absolutely right that if a team takes the initial funding and then simply stops delivering milestones, our current process doesn’t have a clear trigger to start a crisis intervention.
This is the perfect example of why this one-month review period is so crucial. We need to fix this. A potential solution could be:
to empower the DAO Stewards to initiate a “status check” vote if a project misses its planned milestone deadline by a certain period (e.g., 30 days). This check vote should belong to 3.3.2 Proposal Lifecycle - Phase 3: Execution Oversight - Crisis Management, which is paralleling the normal milestone quick vote.
What do you and the rest of the community think? We are very open to adding a clause to address this before the final vote.
2. On Time-Weighted Voting:
Your idea to weigh votes by the duration of DAO deposits is one of the best ways to reward long-term alignment. We appreciate the principle.
The reason we didn’t include it in v1.1 is due to its complexity and ecosystem-wide implications. It’s more than just a simple rule change; it could potentially interact with the core mechanics of Nervos DAO, future potential integrations like iCKB, and the balance between long-term stakers and liquidity providers.
Our goal with v1.1 is to build the foundational “parliament building” first. A robust topic like time-weighted voting deserves to be debated and decided upon in that new, more efficient venue. We encourage the community to think of it as a prime candidate for a v1.2 proposal.
3. On Post-Quantum Readiness and the Future:
Your long-term vision is inspiring. Similarly, the v1.1 proposal is about laying the first stone. Once this infrastructure is in place, it will empower community members like you to propose and lead these ambitious v1.x or even v2.x upgrades.
Thank you again for your invaluable contribution.
嗨，knmo，
感谢您提供的深刻而富有洞察力的反馈。说真的，这正是能够让我们的DAO更加强大的建设性想法。
1. 关于“解构性不作为”（例如项目停滞）：
您指出了我们现行规则中的一个真正盲点，谢谢！您说得完全正确，如果一个团队拿到了初始资金，然后就停止交付里程碑，那么我们目前的流程就缺乏启动危机干预的明确触发点。
这完美地诠释了为什么这个为期一个月的审查期如此重要。我们需要解决这个问题。一个潜在的解决方案可能是：
授权 DAO 物业在项目未能按计划完成里程碑期限（例如 30 天）时发起“状态检查”投票。此检查投票应属于 3.3.2 提案生命周期 - 第 3 阶段：执行监督 - 危机管理，与常规的里程碑快速投票并行。
您和社区其他成员有何看法？我们非常乐意在最终投票前添加一个条款来解决这个问题。
2. 关于时间加权投票：
您提出的根据 DAO 存款期限来衡量投票数的想法是奖励长期一致性的最佳方式之一。我们赞赏这一原则。
我们之所以没有将其纳入 v1.1 版本，是因为其复杂性及其对整个生态系统的影响。这不仅仅是一个简单的规则变更；它可能会与 Nervos DAO 的核心机制、未来可能集成的 iCKB 以及长期质押者和流动性提供者之间的平衡产生互动。
我们 v1.1 版本的目标是首先构建基础性的“议会大厦”。像时间加权投票这样重要的议题值得在这个新的、更高效的平台中进行讨论和决策。我们鼓励社区将其视为 v1.2 版本提案的主要候选方案。
3. 关于后量子时代的准备和未来：
您的长远愿景令人鼓舞。同样，v1.1 版本提案也奠定了基础。一旦这个基础设施到位，它将赋能像您这样的社区成员，让他们能够提出并领导这些雄心勃勃的 v1.x 甚至 v2.x 升级。
再次感谢您的宝贵贡献。