Hello, any dCKB rescuer update, please?
Good morning @matt.eth, thank you for the question!! 
Letās make this an informal update: currently Iām collaborating to extend some aspects of CCC, in particular related to UDT. In short, Iām bringing in my experience of working with iCKB and allowing all Community to benefit from it, thanks to CCC and @Hanssen hard work!
Once that is stabilized and CCC-based iCKB libraries well-tested, I can launch the new CCC based interface and bot. Once that is done, Iāll move to dCKB Rescuer!
In the meantime, I was also asked to review the Quantum Resistant Lock, which I plan on doing this week.
Circling back to dCKB Rescuer, Iād like to provide here some additional context that I already provided in Nervos Nation:
For all newcomers: dCKB is an old protocol wrapping NervosDAO deposits. In theory dCKB and iCKB are similar, but dCKB had a naive design that lead to its downfall. Once the creators realized their error, they try to release a v2, shortly before closing down everything, locking up user funds in the process and ghosting the community in the end.
iCKB is different in creators, design and open source-ness.
Any hope of exchanging the DCKB purchased from the secondary market?
Short answer: Nope, only those who created the original dCKB deposits can withdraw them using the dCKB tokens. Nothing I can do about that.
Long answer: Yes IF someone buys those dCKB off from your hands and thatās the whole point about the upcoming dCKB Rescuer refresh, so provide a place where:
- Secondary holders can sell back the dCKB tokens
- Original depositors can buy back the dCKB tokens
For any more doubts or questions, Iām here 
Phroi %26
2 Likes
Hello @phroi , thank you for your ongoing work. Iād like to follow up on the progress of this project. Or more specificallyāI want to know if the dckb I hold still holds value 
(ckb1qzl58smqy32hnrq6vxjedcxe2fugvnz497h7yvwqvwel40uh4rltcqd4hfdg7w6rs4mujq688qy8jm45rsvzrecrehagr, I had to move my dckb here due to godwokenās termination, but I find I canāt even transfer it anymore). In any case, thank you again for your ongoing work.
2 Likes
Hey @matt.eth, thank you for the question! 
TLDR: No, likely
Longer Version:
- For those dCKB tokens to have any value we need to find the Original Depositors of dCKB, willing to buy them back and use them to unlock their dCKB Deposits.
- These Original Depositors seems to be gone: in all this time I heard of exactly one user who needed a bit of dCKB to unlock a deposit (more than one year ago). Since then I didnāt heard from him anymore. (Likely he got already those dCKB from the secondary market.)
That said, I would be happy to be wrong, so I shoot a message to anybody who ever told me about dCKB and from there we can see if any Original Depositors emerge.
My reach in the Chinese community is very limited, I would be grateful if you could spread the question @matt.eth: Does anyone have dCKB-deposits that need some dCKB to unlock?
Anybody who needs help with dCKB please comment here, specifying if you have any dCKB deposits.
Phroi
1 Like
Thank you for your reply. I have two questions Iād like your assistance with:
1. Will there be any further developments for the ādCKB Rescuerā project? You previously mentioned an āoverhaul of the dCKB Rescuer DAppā;
2. How can I transfer dckb? Iāve noticed that while I can view my dckb balance on the explorer and in Mobit, Iām unable to perform any transfers.
Thank you!
1 Like
If we can find even a single dCKB Original Depositor who needs dCKB, yes, by all means!!
Without OD, dCKB tokens are worthless and it doesnāt make sense to spend time on it.
My biggest issue is that the next hypothetical dCKB Rescuer iteration would be a pain to develop and test due to this bugfix: https://blog.cryptape.com/ckb-vm-changes-under-the-meepo-hardfork#heading-fix-nervos-dao-occupied-capacity-vulnerability
With that bugfix you canāt deposit & withdraw new dCKB deposits with the original v1 nor v2 dCKB protocol (cause deposit lock size != withdrawal request lock size), so how can I even test if my tool works or not?
Iām still wrapping my head how I would need to hypothetically work around it.
Also all the tech involved in the previous iteration is now legacy, for example PW_Lock, Lumosā¦ So you can understand why Iām not really keen on this undertaking.
I would try ckbccc.com: it is more of a demo for devs (so not intended to meet all user needs), but it may support sUDT + PW_Lock.
Merry Christmas and thank you for the questions,
Phroi
Alright, I understand. Merry Christmas! Thank you again for your contributions to the community.
1 Like
Hey all, small update on the iCKB side 
I cleaned up a few iCKB artifacts around the DAO, headers, witnesses, and deployment notes:
-
ickb/contractsPR #19: merged. Adds the local executable review plus the expandedscripts/testssuites and replay-heavy cases. See also iCKB Contracts Revisited: Old Code, New Audit -
ickb/whitepaperPR #24: merged. Consolidates the protocol and deployment notes. -
nervosnetwork/rfcsPR #453: open. Notes the current DAO same-serialized-lock-size rule that nodes enforce for phase-1 withdrawals.
That last point is the same current node rule I mentioned earlier here for dCKB Rescuer, so at least that constraint is now written down more clearly.
Love & Peace, Phroi
3 Likes
Hey all, quick iCKB codebase update
iCKB Stack is now the main TypeScript codebase around the deployed scripts: CCC-based SDK, interface, bot, DAO utilities, Limit Order utilities, tester, and Node runtime code.
The reason is simple: CCC migration, and the February 2025 liquidity crunch. The interface and bot should read the same account, pool, and order state, build conversions through the same SDK paths, and fail closed when scans are incomplete.
For users and integrators, the SDK now covers direct conversions when available, Limit Order fallback, small iCKB exits through normal orders, maturity estimates, transaction completion, sending, and confirmation.
For the bot, the new policy keeps spare capital as CKB, uses the 180-epoch maturity ring when creating future-inventory deposits, withdraws crowded-bucket extras first, and protects ready-pool anchors so stale bucket data fails closed. Once deployed, this should help preserve deposit availability, but it does not remove DAO maturity waits.
Direct iCKB-to-CKB withdrawals can still wait for withdrawal requests to mature. Smaller exits can still wait on the botās CKB buffer while DAO deposits mature.
Not broadly ready yet. The next check is live testing that shows why each bot iteration skipped, matched, rebalanced, sent, confirmed, or failed.
Love & Peace, Phroi
PS: Since this thread also covered dCKB Rescuer, this is not a dCKB refresh promise. The CCC DAO, Limit Order, and SDK work may help later, but dCKB work only makes sense if original dCKB depositors still need dCKB to unlock their deposits.
3 Likes
Testing the CCC version of the iCKB bot on Testnet 
You can watch it here:
The bot and tester are moving testnet CKB around and trying CKB/iCKB swaps: fun to see it working live!! 
Phroi
4 Likes
Hey all, I need to share a setback on the new iCKB CCC-native libraries. I was close to calling this work done, but we just got some bad news:
The CCC UDT support that iCKB depends on is currently stale and I just got confirmation that it might very well be rewritten. Releasing now would risk giving developers something fragile.
Iāll update again once the path is clear,
Phroi
4 Likes
Could you elaborate? Graph/Stats
Hey @knmo!! It started from a user who removed in one tx half of the iCKB liquidity (the half that was ready for withdrawal) in an already spasely populated protocol, feel free to look thru this explorer pages:
From there, lead times from withdrawal request to withdrawal become longer and longer, until stabilizing once the other iCKB deposits come into maturity range.
One of the things I worked on in this iteration is to make iCKB bot rearrange deposits across the 180 epochs cycle, currently being tested on testnet.
Phroi
1 Like