As a moderator, I have informed the Committee of CKB Community Fund DAO of the controversy on HuntingNFT’s giveaways/airdrops to voters.
The Committee believes that this is a good time to update the meta-rules, and all members of the CKB community should be encouraged to discuss these updates. Updates may include but are not limited to the calculation method of votes, delay period for resubmission, incentives for voters, bribery, standards for evaluating, etc.
It should be noted that the updates of meta-rules should be the result of community discussion and voting, rather than being directly decided/updated by the Committee or moderators. So, glad to see more opinions before the proposal is raised.
作为一名管理员，我已经把 HuntingNFT 因为空投代币而引发争议这件事，告知了 CKB Community Fund DAO 管理委员会。
Hi @JackyLHH, do you think a proposal for a one line addition to rules is possible based on Matt’s opening post?
Something like:
Incentive mechanisms such as money, material gain, favors, either explicitly or implicitly, should not be associated in any way with the proposal or voting process.
I feel like that is within the spirit of the opening post which has now reached 30 likes
There has been talking of anyone having their own tokens should not be advised to submit within the rules. That would prevent people from promising a stake in their ecosystem.
To which parts of the ecosystem have they built out?
L1 or L2?
This is a CKB thread and community fund.
The Nation proposal for instance is for L1 so videos are about a lot of Layer 1, (They have an NFT store coming soon and that’s L2 and helped/aided by Eric and his merry jedi)
I think we also need to discuss the actual use cases for the grant, is it for all layers?
As everything is decentralised, is it for Nervos as a whole?
Why do other layers get a free ride on a grant system built for the layer1 DAO if so?
Are other layers intending to add to this community fund if it’s for everyone to utilise? Those DAO funds are a part and will remain of the L1 Tokenomics system in the future as you mention.
To me, these questions are very important to know/understand.
I think we all dropped the ball here, apart from @matt.bit@neon.bit and @FlipForTheWin who had their say during the discussion phase.
I think it was obvious to @HuntingNFT.Team that this wasn’t going to be looked upon well by the community, but even after acknowledging this, they still went ahead with it.
But this is not their problem, they played by the rules at the time and there wasn’t enough of us who came forward publicly against this in the discussion phase, so it was the apathy of the community that is to blame IMO. Even now after 16 days, only 31 people have liked Matt’s original post.
Anyway, I think we need to look at the positive side of this now, it has brought to light some issues that I think will be far easier to rally behind now that it has actually happened and is not just a possibility.
While @HuntingNFT.Team might have made an unethical decision, I don’t think they are malicious and the funds will be spent on a project that will bring some sort of value to Nervos.
I also think that it was a small price to pay, as things could have been a lot worse.
For example, a malicious actor could have asked for 200M CKB, got through the proposal stage using multiple accounts and then offered all sorts of incentives at the voting stage, as there were no rules against this. At least now we will never have to deal with a situation like that.