This kind of authority comes from the DAO Committee (Cipher, Terry, Jan)
1 Like
Yes, I can see the subtle differences here. But precisely because the differences are so subtle, I need very clear rules. Just like rounding—even 0.49 rounds to 0, but just slightly larger 0.5 rounds to 1. I believe no conclusion can be reached without very clear rules.
Six official AMAs are distributed across different stages of the project, rather than concentrated just before the project launch.
The team has reserved dedicated time without affecting the development progress.
Participants receive advance notice, allowing them time to prepare their questions. Dedicated personnel document the entire process and compile summaries to be posted on forums and in various community groups.
Hi Matt, I may not know you very well, but I have seen all the work you’ve done in the community.
I may be exactly the opposite of you—I’m very accustomed to dealing with computers, not people, because in the world of computers there are only 0s and 1s, and everything is clear and unambiguous. So I hope that what I receive is also clear and unambiguous.
Perhaps you consider such discussions a manifestation of community spirit, but for me it is truly chaos, a burden.
I actually mentioned to Baiyu some time ago that I hoped there could be a technical expert panel or something similar to review our technical solutions.
I don’t know if Baiyu failed to relay this message to you.
Believe me, for technical solutions, this is the fastest and most acceptable way for everyone.
1 Like
Doubts about whitelist centralization were raised in time for their inclusion in AMA, to be precise an AMA was held right after they were raised
1 Like
You have appealed to the authority of the CKB devs, dev relations etc. many times who were part of the developing the solution.
Would these be the same people reviewing the solution? I’m confused, but maybe I will just work with Baiyu from now on, I can see how these conversations are problematic from your end.
This is a question that I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
This is yet another example of the differences between us. Your focus is always on people, while my focus remains consistently on rules, systems—these non-human factors.
I understand your concerns, but this is precisely the challenge that community governance must confront.
In fact, I said to Baiyu just yesterday: From a certain special perspective, DAO 1.1 has been remarkably successful, because it has stepped into almost every pitfall that community governance possibly could. Even if the project doesn’t succeed, it would still serve as sufficient case study for community governance.
1 Like
In systems language:
“What differentiates this expert panel review from the expert panel review you have highlighted as already determining this as the optimal solution?”
I will talk to Baiyu about it, I can see that from a process perspective this would have been a good action to take after the initial concerns were raised.
1 Like
I had thought this question didn’t need my answer at all.
Since you mentioned this in another post, I’ll share my views.
First, there is one point you may have misunderstood.
What I said here is that I had extensive discussions with many developers about possible solutions to cell conflicts. This discussion has nothing to do with the technical solution of dao1.1. Moreover, cell conflicts are a problem only in the alternative solution proposed by phroi; dao1.1 itself does not have this issue.
During the technical selection process for dao1.1, we did receive help from some people, and I can clearly list them:
- When I previously discussed keystore-related issues with phroi, I mentioned that we initially wanted wallets to cooperate with modifications for dao1.1’s technical solution, so we convened hanssen (representing utxo global) and cipher (representing joyid). However, the conclusion of our discussion was that wallets should not be made to adapt to dao1.1’s technical solution.This is also my third reason for questioning whether the alternative solution proposed by phroi is feasible, because we have already tried it and therefore understand how great the difficulties are here.
- The voting contract solution used in dao1.1 comes from the core team. But they only provided single-point technical support and are not responsible for the overall technical solution of dao1.1.
- As for jan, needless to say, he merely published some articles on web5 technology at the very beginning and was not involved in dao1.1’s technical solution at all.
The expert panel you mentioned here simply does not exist at all.
1 Like
2 Likes