As one of the initiators of v1, let me share my views.
From the beginning, v1 was an experiment because we were aware of the challenges of on-chain governance from day one (see positioning paper). However, we also understood that no matter how difficult something is, there always has to be a start. Since there can never be a “perfect” time to launch, the best time is “now,” which was in the second half of 2022. After some discussions, it officially launched in January 2023.
We had many discussions and debates about how the rules for v1 should look like. The principle we finally agreed upon was: keep everything simple. We didn’t want CKB DAO’s experiment to be constrained by various traditional experiences right from the start. We wanted it to have an easy beginning so that we could explore our own path more freely based on first principles, and learn from doing, even if this meant experiencing setbacks and taking more time. The final charter formed is indeed very simple with only a few rules. This simplicity was intentional.
The consequences of this approach are easily foreseeable and visible today. There are many good summaries, opinions, and new ideas out there that I won’t repeat here. But one thing I want to say is that these issues are not due to any participant but rather due to v1’s mechanism design problems. I don’t want reflections on v1 turning into blame among community members; such accusations are unreasonable and unhelpful for CKB’s growth.
In my view, the biggest problem with v1 is too little review happening too slowly resulting in minimal evolution over time—from January 2023 until now—if reviews/upgrades happened annually then by January 2025 we’d already reach v3 yet currently what constitutes v2 remains unclear. The primary reason, imo, is being complete reliance upon spontaneous community efforts without designated leaders or operators facilitating proposal formation, especially meta-rule proposals. A valuable lesson learned here.
After running for three years,a total payment approval amounting up to 29,881,030 CKB across 11 proposals has been made, leaving 246,118,970 CKB left, i.e. 10% treasury spent. My takeaways include: 1. very low fund utilization, 2. the result of 10% spent is quite acceptable.
Today CKB itself remains entrepreneurial while teams operating within its ecosystem undertake high-risk endeavors; Community DAO acting as incubator/catalyst in an online anonymous environment, naturally carries significant risks too—but if we check my personal favs across the 11 proposals:
- (1) Nervos Nation community grant proposal - Under @neon.bit ’s leadership NN consistently ranks amongst most active Nervos communities contributing significantly both inside/outside proposal scope
- (2) CKBFans Community - Proposal submitted by @yixiu.ckbfans.bit effectively completed, providing numerous conveniences via content organization/tools.
- (6) Build & Distribute Efficient Network Nodes – From inception through execution handled excellently by @wyltek , I can see CKB’s builder&geek spirit from it!
- (7) Spore Protocol – Aimed at raising deployment costs covering spore contract, designed by Cryptape DevRel. Deployed successfully and used by later projects. The contracts themselves are public goods usable by anyone post-deployment, hence seeking DAO funding support also presents future public goods developers an example.
- (8) Omiga Inscription Protocol– Fulfilled all stated objectives, and kept continous updates/improvements after the initial goals. Respect to @Oliver
-(11) iCKB&dCBK Rescuer Funding Proposal – As one of the teams providing technical support to @phroi , we may be more aware than anyone else of how much time and effort he has invested in this. Compared to his contributions and the results achieved by this proposal, the amount paid here is far from sufficient. I’m very grateful for phroi’s dedication.
From this data, after three years, we have used 10% of our reserves to successfully complete at least six projects. To me this result is entirely acceptable and even commendable in the high-risk crypto industry. The greatest credit naturally goes to our community, as it were community members contributed their knowledge and skills for rigorous project reviews. On the other hand, due to a lack of organization and often overly stringent reviews, we were unable to find and fund more outstanding projects or fully utilize reserve funds.
Therefore, I believe v1 has played a good role as a starting point, and we have also gained experience and results from v1. There is no need to deny that some projects funded by v1 are controversial, but this is the cost of growth. If someone’s to blame, it is the responsibility of the simple rules of v1, not anyone participated in v1.
v1 has made my confidence in community governance stronger, not weaker. Although it is slow and inefficient, it demonstrates the spirit and capability of the CKB community. CKB will exist for a long time; NervosDAO/secondary issuance/on-chain treasury are ready for us, time is on our side.
Compared to pursuing a perfect v2, I believe that the evolution of DAO is more important, as well as the gradual improvement of rules and innovation and competition in those rules. I am certain that v2 will not be perfect either, but so what? As long as we share the same goals and can help each other and collaborate, we’ll grow through v3, v4, or even many versions of v2, v3, and v4 competing with each other. Perhaps we may never find a perfect governance mechanism, but as long as we have common goals and spirit, we will always be closer to perfection than any other community!
Thank you to all the proposers @neon.bit @yixiu.ckbfans.bit @Vesper @wyltek @Oliver @T_Silva @phroi. Whether successful or not, your initiative is the most valuable asset of the CKB community.
作为 v1 的发起者之一，说说我的看法。
v1 从一开始就是一个实验，因为我们从第一天就清楚链上治理的难度（见 positioning paper）。但我们也清楚，无论一个事情多难，总是要有一个开始的，既然不可能有“完美的”启动时间点，那最好的时间就是“现在“，也就是 2022 年下半年，讨论一段时间后在 2023 年 1月正式启动了。
在 v1 的规则如何设计上，我们有过很多讨论和争执，最终达成一致的原则是：一切从简。我们不希望 CKB DAO 的实验在一开始就被各种经验束缚，我们希望它能有一个轻松的开始，让我们能够更多从第一性原理出发，能够从动手中真正学习，抛下包袱寻找自己的路，即使这样做会让我们经历很多挫折，需要很多时间。最终形成的章程确实也很简单，没几条规则。 这是故意的。
这么做的后果很容易预见，也是今天大家都能够看到的。大家都有很多很好的总结，观点和新的想法，这里我不赘述。但有一点我想说的是，这些问题的出现不是任何一个参与者的问题，而是v1机制设计的问题。我不希望看到对 v1 的回顾变成社区成员之间的指责，这样的指责是没有道理的，对 CKB 的发展也是无益处的。
在我看来，v1 最大的问题是回顾太少太慢，以至于进化太少太慢。从 2023 年 1月到现在，如果一年回顾和进化一次，2025年1月应该是v3了，然而现状是 v2 应该是什么样子都不清楚。导致这个问题的最大原因，是 v1 一开始就是完全依赖社区推动的，没有任何负责人或者运营人，而我们已经看到完全靠社区自发是很难形成提案尤其是 meta rule 提案的了。这是很宝贵的经验。
v1 运行三年之后，一共批准支付了 29,881,030 CKB 给 11份提案, 还剩下 246,118,970 CKB, 花费了10%。我对这个结果的看法是： 1. 资金使用效率是很低的，2. 10%的支出换来的结果是完全可接受的。
CKB自身依然是创业中，在CKB生态做事情的团队更是在做高风险的事情，Community DAO 作为 CKB 生态的孵化器/推动器，又是一个线上匿名的组织形式，风险自然也是很高的。但如果我们看看这11份提案的结果，有不少是我个人比较认可的：
- (1) Nervos Nation community grant proposal - 在 @neon.bit 的带领下 NN 一直是最活跃的 Nervos 社区，提案内外都做了很多贡献。
- (2) CKBFans 社区 - @yixiu.ckbfans.bit 从内容整理/入口和工具角度提出的提案也很好的完成了，为社区提供了很多便利，无论提案内外也都做了很多工作。
- (6) Build and Distribute Efficient Network Nodes - @wyltek 从提案到执行都完成的非常好，也是我最喜欢的项目之一，非常有 builder & geek 精神。
- (7) Spore Protocol - 这个提案是为了 spore 合约在链上部署筹集费用, spore 合约是 Cryptape DevRel 设计的，但由于合约代码本身是一种公共物品，放到链上谁都可以用，因此我们希望可以通过dao资助这部分成本，也希望为未来的公共物品开发者提供一个思路。最终 Spore 成功上线并被使用。
- (8) Omiga Inscription Protocol - 实现了提案所说的全部，并且在提案范围之外持续更新和改进，是我非常喜欢的一个 ckb app.
- (11) iCKB & dCKB Rescuer Funding Proposal - 作为为 @phroi 提供技术支持的团队之一，我们可能比任何人都清楚他为此投入了多少时间和精力，与他的投入，以及这个提案收获的结果相比，这里支付的数额是远远不够的。很感激 phroi 的付出。
从这些数据看，三年过去，我们用10%的储备，比较好的完成了至少6个项目，这个结果在高风险的crypto圈是完全可接受，甚至是很好的，这里面功劳最大的自然是我们的社区，是社区成员贡献自己的知识和能力对项目的严格审查。但另一方面，由于缺乏组织以及很多时候过于严苛的审查，我们没能够找到和资助更多的优秀项目，没能充分利用储备资金。
因此，我认为v1很好的扮演了一个起点的角色，我们也从v1收获了经验和成果。无需否认我们对 v1 资助的某些项目有争议，但这是成长需要的代价。如果要问责，那也是v1规则简单的责任，不是参与v1的任何人的。
v1 让我对社区治理的信心变得更强而不是更弱。虽然它很慢，虽然它效率低，但是它展示了ckb社区的精神和能力。CKB 是会长期存在的，NervosDAO/二级增发/on-chain Treasury 是准备好的，时间站在我们这边。
比起追求完美的 v2, 我认为更重要的是 DAO 的进化，是规则的逐步完善，是规则创新和竞争。我相信 v2 也不会是完善的，但那又怎么样呢？只要我们目标一致，能够互相帮助和协作，那就还会有 v3 v4, 甚至会有很多个 v2 v3 v4 相互竞争。也许我们永远都找不到完美的治理机制，但只要我们有共同的目标和精神，我们就永远会比其他任何社区都接近完美。
谢谢 v1 所有的提案人 @neon.bit @yixiu.ckbfans.bit @Vesper @wyltek @Oliver @T_Silva @phroi ，无论成功失败，你们的行动力是CKB社区最宝贵的财富。