On-Chain Tally: DAO v1.1 Limits and a Deposit-Paired Voting Proposal

[phroi]

Hey @david-fi5box, I feel like our words are getting past each other

DID clearly maps to creating an account on MetaForo, no trouble at all with that, issue is with the technical choice of using whitelist due to its centralization vector.

@david-fi5box

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）

Forgetting for a second the centralization vector, the difference is still subtle but substantial:

• In DAO v1.1 a user can be explicitly forbidden by design from participating in an existing vote. I can have a pre-existing deposit, but still being blocked from voting on a proposal: Didn’t create a DID in time? Excluded from whitelist, so not eligible to vote
• For example, in Deposit-Paired Voting a user can at any time withdraw its old deposit and participate in a Deposit-Paired Voting proposal. Let’s assume withdrawal day is too far: a user can still sell its DAO deposit to someone for CKB (withdraw deposit to buyer address) and then use use said CKB in Deposit-Paired Voting

@david-fi5box

during the DAO 1.1 project, we held 6 AMAs, four of which had no attendees at all.

Just a question: what’s the difference between those 6 official AMAs and these Nervos Talk public discussions?

@david-fi5box

This is a technical topic that many people are paying attention to. Therefore, it shouldn’t be just the two of us discussing it—more technical personnel should be invited to participate in the discussion.

Yesss!! Until threads get locked (which I’m actively trying to prevent), anyone can join at any time, that’s the beauty of Nervos Talk

Phroi