Hi Phroi, I noticed your stance has changed—you previously kept asking us to remove the state root from the voting contract so that everyone could participate in voting. So I’ve been confused: doesn’t the meta-rule state that only those with stakes in NervosDAO have voting rights?
Glad to see our communication is finally making substantive progress.
So the current focal point is: does DID create a barrier for users who should have voting rights to participate in voting?
Clearly, our understanding of the meta-rules is inconsistent.
I don’t understand: why is requiring users to create a DID considered a barrier to their voting rights, while the alternative solution phroi proposed—requiring users to change the lock on their existing NervosDAO staked cells—is not considered a barrier?（phroi can comment if it’s not correct）
Of course, this issue has already gone beyond the technical scope. I’m not an expert on DAO rules; I’m just raising questions in my personal capacity.
But clearly, this is a very serious issue involving the fundamentals of DAO governance. I cannot make changes immediately upon hearing someone’s opinion, even if that person is Matt.
Please forgive my stubbornness, but on this issue, I must see a more formal conclusion.
Regarding DID, the DAO 1.1 project stated from the very beginning that it would use Web5 technology. Matt was present at the first AMA and even raised related questions, which the team answered. By the way, Phroi did not attend any of the AMAs.
Of course, some people may not have fully understood Web5 technology, but the slogan “Web5 = Web2 + Web3” should be widely known. Jan published three articles about Web5 six months before the DAO 1.1 project started (I’m not citing Jan as endorsement here, just stating objective facts).
So when Matt said at the M2 milestone of DAO 1.1 that those who voted in favor of DAO 1.1 actually wanted a fully on-chain voting system, I find it hard to agree that this represents community consensus rather than the personal views of certain individuals.
Finally, a word about my personal feelings.
I’m just the technical lead of the DAO 1.1 team. I report to and am accountable to the leader of the DAO 1.1 proposal team.
When discussing governance rules beyond the technical scope, I’m just an ordinary community member and do not represent the DAO 1.1 team.
Similarly, I believe Matt overstepped boundaries by bypassing the leader of the DAO 1.1 proposal team and directly pressuring me to accept the so-called alternative technical solution.
Of course, this is a community project, and I have an obligation to answer community members’ technical questions. But I must say, over the past month, I’ve spent a great deal of time replying on the forum, which has significantly impacted development tasks—including the occupation of my personal time and energy, as well as team members’ concerns about the project’s prospects. Meanwhile, during the DAO 1.1 project, we held 6 AMAs, four of which had no attendees at all.
To summarize:
- Regarding the issues with the DAO 1.1 proposal, I need a more formal conclusion.
- Regarding communication and discussion, I hope for a more focused and efficient approach.
我发现论坛的翻译插件有的时候会翻译错，所以我把中文版本也贴出来：
Hi phroi，我发现你的观点变了，你之前可是一直要求我们去除投票合约里的state root，以便让所有人都能参与投票。所以我一直很困惑，元规则里不是说了只有在nervos dao里有质押才有投票权吗？
很高兴看到我们的沟通终于有了实质性进展。
所以现在问题的焦点是： did 是否对本应有投票权的用户参与投票产生了阻碍？
显然我们对元规则的理解是不一致的。
我不明白：为什么需要用户创建一个did就是对用户的投票权设置了阻碍，而phroi提的替代方案里，需要用户把现有的nervos dao质押的cell换一个lock就不是设置阻碍了？
当然这个问题已经超出技术的范畴了，我不是dao规则方面的专家，只是以个人身份提出疑问。
但是显然这个问题非常严肃，涉及到dao治理的根本，我不可能随便听到一个人的意见就立即做出改变，即使提出意见的人是matt。
请原谅我的固执，关于这个问题我必须看到更加正式的结论。
另外关于 DID，dao1.1项目在一开始就声明了要使用web5技术。第一次AMA的时候matt也在场，还提出了相关的问题，团队也给出了解答。顺便一提，phroi没有参加任何一次AMA。
当然可能还有人没有详细了解web5技术，但是 web5 = web2 + web3 这个slogan应该是众所周知的。jan发布了3篇关于web5的文章可是在dao1.1项目开始半年以前的事情（此处没有拉jan背书的意思，只是陈述客观事实）。
所以matt在dao1.1已经到达M2的的时候，才说对dao1.1投赞成票的人其实是想要一个 full onchain的投票系统。我很难认同这是社区的共识，而不是某些人个人的想法。
最后说下我个人的感受。
我只是dao1.1团队的技术leader，我向dao1.1提案团队的负责人汇报并负责。
在讨论超过技术范畴的治理规则的时候我只是一个普通的社区成员，不代表dao1.1团队。
同样的，我认为matt越过dao1.1提案团队的负责人直接向我施压，要求我必须接收所谓的替代技术方案也是越界的。
当然这是一个社区项目，我有义务答复社区成员关于技术方面的疑问。但是我不得不说，最近一个月我把大量的时间花费在论坛的回复上，对开发任务产生了很大的影响，包括我个人时间和精力的占用，也包括团队成员对项目前景的担忧。但是于此同时，在dao1.1项目进行过程中，我们举办了6次AMA，其中四次一个人都没有。
最后总结一下：
- 关于dao1.1的方案存在的问题，我需要更加正式的结论
- 关于沟通和讨论，我希望能有更加集中的，更加高效的方式。