DAO Proposal Sync (Discussion Phase)
This proposal reached 33 likes within the 7-day discussion window and is eligible to proceed to the Metaforo voting stage.
During the window, some community members raised a concern about these likes, so I reviewed them on the final data at the close of the window. No duplicate accounts were found, and all 33 likes stand. Seven of the likes came from accounts created during the window whose only activity has been liking the author’s posts. The full review note follows.
Like Audit: Proposal at [DIS] RIVET: Decentralized GitHub Backup, Timestamping and Restore on CKB
Prepared by: @zz_tovarishch DAO Coordinator
Date: 2026-09-30
Subject: Verification of the 33 likes on the first post of the proposal
1. Background
Some community members raised a concern about the likes on this proposal while its discussion window was still open. As the DAO coordinator, I reviewed the likes using forum administrative data, following the same method as the earlier audit of t/10453. The window closed on 2026-09-29 at 15:53 UTC, and this note uses the final data at that point.
Accounts are identified by their numeric forum user ID. Usernames, email addresses, IP addresses and device details are withheld to avoid exposing personal data and to keep the assessment free of identity bias.
2. Headline finding
The first post had 33 likes when the discussion window closed, and none were added afterward. The review found no evidence that any two of the liking accounts are operated by the same person. It did find 7 accounts that were created after the proposal was published and whose only activity on the forum is liking the author’s posts. Whether these 7 accounts belong to one person or to several people invited by the author cannot be established from forum data.
The remaining 26 likes show no signs of concern. They include long-standing community members.
3. Method and data sources
The review used the same administrative records as t/10453: account creation time, registration IP, last-seen IP, trust level and activity metrics. Two sources were added. The first is the IP address of every recorded login session, which gives a fuller network history than the registration and last-seen snapshots. Because Discourse overwrites a session’s IP address when it refreshes the session, these were collected twice, on 2026-09-28 and again after the window closed, and both sets were compared. The second is each account’s complete like history with timestamps. Discourse’s own similar-user count, which flags accounts sharing an IP address, was also checked. User IDs are issued strictly in registration order.
4. Evidence
4.1 No shared network identity
Across all 33 liking accounts and the author’s account, and across every recorded login session in both collections (117 distinct IP addresses), no IP address is shared by any two accounts. Discourse’s similar-user count links none of them to one another. The author’s IP addresses carry no other forum account. This is the decisive difference from t/10453, where the proposal author’s own account shared an IP address with eight of the liking accounts.
4.2 Seven single-purpose accounts
All seven registered between 2026-09-23 and 2026-09-26, after the proposal was published on 2026-09-22. Each liked the proposal within minutes of registering, and every like any of them has given on the forum went to the author’s posts. None has posted, and total reading time ranges from 7 seconds to about 3 minutes.
| User ID | Registered (UTC) | Registration to like | Likes given in total | Of which on the author’s posts | Total read time | Days visited |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4472 | 2026-09-23 12:30 | 41 min | 2 | 2 | ~3 min | 1 |
| 4478 | 2026-09-23 20:15 | 19 s | 1 | 1 | 7 s | 1 |
| 4482 | 2026-09-24 17:00 | ~2 min | 1 | 1 | 13 s | 1 |
| 4483 | 2026-09-24 18:19 | ~6 min | 4 | 4 | ~2 min | 3 |
| 4485 | 2026-09-25 17:29 | ~6 min | 2 | 2 | ~2 min | 1 |
| 4489 | 2026-09-26 08:34 | 51 s | 1 | 1 | ~2 min | 1 |
| 4490 | 2026-09-26 08:40 | ~2 min | 1 | 1 | 40 s | 2 |
Account 4472’s first like, 29 seconds after it registered, went to the author’s earlier topic on the same project.
4.3 What the evidence does not show
The seven accounts use a different IP address in every session, spread across three mobile carriers and four days. The author also switches between carriers, so this spread fits either one person using several SIM cards or several different people. One of the seven (4478) uses the same uncommon desktop configuration as one of the author’s sessions, but a device type is not an identifier and the IP addresses differ. Some of the seven fall in the same carrier address blocks as the author. On shared mobile networks this indicates at most that they are in the same area.
4.4 Context
The same behavior appears elsewhere in the same registration window. Among accounts created between 2026-09-21 and 2026-09-27, several others registered and then liked a single proposal, and those proposals belong to other authors. Registering in order to support one proposal is therefore not specific to this proposal. This observation is context only and is not a review of those proposals (see Section 7).
5. Assessment against prior practice
The prior practice this DAO relies on comes from Growing the Italian ecosystem (talk.nervos.org/t/growing-the-italian-ecosystem/7707).
The element that justified removal there was one person liking through several accounts. That element is not established here.
In the audit of t/10453, seven accounts without a direct IP link were also excluded. They were excluded because their user IDs sat inside an unbroken registration run together with accounts already tied to the author by shared IP, so they belonged to an operation whose single operator had been shown. Here no operator has been shown, and the seven accounts are interleaved with unrelated new accounts that liked other proposals. The inference that supported the earlier exclusion is not available.
Excluding these seven likes would therefore mean treating newly created, single-purpose accounts as ineligible to like. That would be a new standard rather than an application of prior practice.
6. Conclusion
The DAO’s metarules contain no provision on who may like a proposal during the discussion phase, the coordinator holds no authority to invalidate support by fiat, and the prior practice does not reach these accounts. The seven likes are therefore not removed. The count for the discussion-phase threshold remains 33, and the proposal is eligible to proceed to the Metaforo voting stage.
Whether likes from accounts created only to support a proposal should count toward the threshold is a question the metarules do not currently answer. If the DAO wants such a rule, for example a minimum account age or level of activity for a like to count, it should be adopted through the normal process and applied to all proposals going forward rather than to this proposal alone.
7. Scope of this review
As with the audit of t/10453, this review was triggered only because a specific concern was raised while the proposal was live. It creates no standing audit, places no obligation on the coordinator to review other proposals, and does not reopen proposals whose discussion windows have already closed.
8. Availability of the evidence
The complete underlying records are held by the coordinator and are independently visible to forum administrators through the forum’s admin tools. Any DAO member may request to review the basis for this note and will receive the pseudonymized evidence record in the same form as this note. Raw personal data such as email addresses, IP addresses and device details is not redistributed. Where a member wants those values confirmed, forum administrators can do so directly.