After clearing browser cache I cannot login into my Web5 on-chain testnet account. That said, the V1.1 website still recognized the address as registered and errors out when trying to register a new Web5 account with the same address.
Can I ask when you first registered your test account with this address? And I assume the “clearing browser cache” event happened at Feb.14?
For the whitelist testing, I’ll be happy to help you test that out. But due to the DAO process, you’ll need to first host an AMA (coordinated by a steward) before you can start an “initial voting”.
So after you send out a testing proposal, just let me know through Telegram (@haoyang94) or here, and I’ll create a fake AMA so you can test the voting
BTW I’d like to point out that in the voted-upon proposal this AMA / Q&A is not specified to be in a video / audio format, for example we have plenty of AMA on Reddit in written format: https://www.reddit.com/r/NervosNetwork/
So the cause of the problem is probably this: last week, the DAO had a server change that cleared out the previous test data. But on-chain data is still there in the cell, so the wallet is still considered as “already registered”.
There are three possible Solutions, ranked from the easiest to the hardest:
Re-use the previously used did cell, utilize the web5 console to re-register on the PDS
Regarding the AMA format: I’m not the suitable person to answer this, so maybe @zz_tovarishch can help with this question.
Also, you can provide your new account address + the DID info, and the dev team can add you to the steward team as a temporary member so you can test out the whole proposal flow.
(Anyone who saw this message & interested in testing the DAO 1.1 platform can send us the mentioned info)
Thanks for your continued interest in the platform. We appreciate it!!
Haoyang
Hi @_magicsheep@Phroi You’re both correct. The v1.1 proposal doesn’t specify that AMAs must be in video/audio format. The wording is “组织社区 AMA 或公开辩论 / organize community AMA or public debate,” with no formatting requirements.
Written Q&A formats (like Reddit AMAs) could technically satisfy this requirement. The most vital point is ensuring that proposers and the community meaningfully engage.
Maybe the practical way is that the proposers can choose the preferred format, whether written, audio, or video?
Yes there should be an English version of the toolbox. And I’ve already forked the project and in communication with the core dev behind this project to make another version of the toolbox so it can be used by people, including not-so-technical ones who wants to learn/operate Web5.
I’ve relayed your address to the dev team, but currently they are on holiday vacations, so do except some delay, I’ll get back to you as soon as I got a response
Hey @phroi , and everyone who is watching this post,
With the support of the core dev, @david-fi5box, behind the web5 toolbox, I created a modified version of it, including a bilingual Readme (English & Chinese). It should be easier for people to navigate all the core functionalities. The goal is to provide easier-to-use interfaces and turn this into a future learning space for those interested in Web5.
All credits for the core functionalities go to David. And do note that, architecturally speaking, this new fork sacrifices flexibility in favor of a more cohesive presentation of the toolings. David’s repo and @Hanssen’s ccc repo are where you should learn the essence of web5 & CKB operations.
Feel free to fire any issues (code, UI, wording, feature, etc.) you have towards the repo. It’s supposed to be an open-source project for the community, so maybe let’s co-build it together.
The dev team has added your address as a temporary steward team member, so now you’ll be able to access this page and manage the lifecycle of proposals:
You just need to send a new proposal, then you can start testing the complete flow. Have fun, and looking forward to your feedback!
I understand that your project needs to move to the next testing phase (mainnet testing), hence I guess this error. For me it’s okay to try it out on mainnet: a few cents spent on mainnet testing wouldn’t make a big difference for me, so long that I’m allowed to test out the v1.1 process.
Let me know how you prefer to continue this informal Community review,
Phroi
Once you are registered, please send me the wallet address and DID. I’ll forward them to the dev team so they can add you as a temporary steward team member
I went thru every step of proposal creation, but I was not able to complete the creation of my test proposal. After submission it errored out with the following error:
I just asked the dev team, they said this feature is only there for testing purpose, and it will be removed after the mainnet launch.
Why are we still going with whitelist that updates at every midnight? How can Community Members test how this is actually gonna work before it goes into production?
Sorry for the late reply—I was in a remote rural area with poor internet after the Spring Festival due to work.
Let me clarify your questions. First, Haoyang misunderstood you earlier. There are actually two whitelists in the DAO system: one for the voting you mentioned, and another we added during testing to prevent regular users from accidentally accessing it. Haoyang was referring to the latter, which will be removed upon official launch.
Back to your questions:
Why do voters need a whitelist?
DAO voting is permission-based, not open to everyone. Only users with staked assets in Nervos DAO have voting rights.
The old system was Web2-based, so it didn’t use an explicit whitelist—it checked voting eligibility (staking status) in real-time when users cast votes, which required network access.
In the new DAO system, we moved to on-chain voting for decentralization and verifiability. The voting system runs as a contract on CKB. Contracts obviously can’t access external networks to verify eligibility at voting time. Hence, we need an explicit whitelist in the new system.
For technical details, see the link: ccfdao docs: Vote System and vote contract design ckb-dao-vote/docs/ckb-dao-vote.md at main · CCF-DAO1-1/ckb-dao-vote
Why do we update the whitelist at midnight daily?
The update frequency is adjustable. We set it very short during testing for convenience, but that was with minimal users.
Based on our tests, at scale—even in extreme cases where all stakers vote—whitelist generation could take hours and consume massive resources. To mitigate this, we implemented two measures:
a. Filter for actual voters: Users must log into the DAO system at leatest onece to be added to the whitelist.
b. Reduce refresh frequency: Daily updates strike the right balance.
How can community users verify this?
We currently lack a user-friendly interface (e.g., intuitive UI) for average users to verify these elements. However, every step in our technical design is verifiable—that was a core priority when building the new DAO system.
Moving forward, we’ll work with community members to build independent verification tools separate from the DAO system. ckb-dao-watchdog/dao-v1.0/metaforo_watchdog_cn.py at main · CKBFansDAO/ckb-dao-watchdog That said, some technical background will likely still be required to complete verification.
That covers all the questions I’ve seen so far. If I missed anything, feel free to reply here and I’ll do my best to address the technical aspects.
First, I want to thank the DAO v1.1 team for your creativity and tremendous effort in bringing such a major proposal to life!
However, I share some of the concerns raised by @phroi. What worries me is not only the unresolved whitelist issue itself but also how things have unfolded—concerns were raised, team member A misunderstood them, team member B missed messages due to poor connection, and then suddenly the whole thing launched without those issues being addressed. This suggests a lack of coordination and clarity. These unresolved matters aren’t coding bugs; they’re fundamental questions about DAO v1.1’s mechanism design. All this could undermine community confidence in DAO v1.1.
I just want to raise the alarm and hope these issues don’t go unnoticed by the DAO v1.1 leadership. We all know how hard it was to get this proposal approved, so I truly hope it gets off to a strong start.
Yes, I agree. The whitelist confusion was an accident—I reviewed the discussion logs later and saw Phroi raised it right after a login question, which caused the mix-up. But it was also bound to happen. The discussions were scattered across multiple posts, plus a TG group I can’t even access. I only catch questions when someone alerts me with exact links or screenshots. The lag time leads to misunderstandings. By the time I’m ready to respond, I can‘t address it precisely—because it’s not even wrong.
@_magicsheep Maybe we should improve our project disclosure and AMA mechanisms?
(Maybe add an en translation in the future?)
