Hi Yeti, I appreciate your tone and the spirit of mutual respect in your message.
Let me respond to your comment about me being “too harsh” with some clarification — and a bit of context.
1. I’ve already been lenient in the past — and we’ve paid the price.
The truth is: I’ve already “lowered the bar” before, especially toward proposals from the English-speaking community.
For example:
- I held back strong objections to William’s proposal: link
- I also let Palmyra’s proposal pass without pushing too hard: link
I didn’t want to be seen as overly strict, so I turned a blind eye and let them go through.
And what happened?
The funds were approved, and then… nothing. No delivery. No clear updates. No responsibility.
Most people voted yes — and most were wrong.
What we saw was a textbook example of how “mob optimism” can become “mob failure.”
Blind faith isn’t decentralization. It’s just a softer form of centralized risk.
Professional governance requires structure, not just trust.
2. I already have lowered my standards — and got insulted for it.
In the case of Omiga, I simply asked for more details. It was an anonymous project — I wanted clarity to ensure the DAO wouldn’t lose funds again.
And what did I get for that?
I was publicly insulted in the Chinese community for “being too picky.”
But I ask: What’s wrong with verifying before funding?
3. Strict review is not “harsh” — it’s responsible.
Years of experience and actual data show that the more rigorous a review process is, the more serious the project team becomes during execution.
Loose approval processes don’t build trust — they destroy it.
Palmyra didn’t fail because I was too harsh.
Palmyra failed because we weren’t harsh enough.
4. You said some teams don’t come from a professional background — that’s exactly why we need standards.
That’s why I proposed clear, structured expectations — including:
- Estimated man-months of work
- Per-person-month pricing
- Basic effort vs cost justification
This isn’t “corporate red tape.”
This is the minimum requirement in any serious engineering or procurement process.
Yet Jordan opposed even these suggestions, claiming that asking for lower cost structures is a form of discrimination.
That’s simply not true.
In every industry, cost-per-unit and scope estimation are the baseline for evaluating fair and effective proposals.
DAO funds are not symbolic — they’re real, limited, and worth defending.
I’m not here to make anyone uncomfortable.
But I won’t pretend that being “relaxed and nice” leads to better project execution — because it doesn’t.
If we want DAO governance to evolve, we can’t keep repeating the same leniency and hoping for different results.
Standards don’t block innovation — they protect it.
Thanks again for the dialogue.
你好 Yeti，感谢你以尊重与建设性的语气参与这场讨论。
关于你提到我“对提案团队太苛刻”的看法，我想做一些澄清，并补充一些背景。
1. 我其实已经对一些提案“睁一只眼闭一只眼”了，而我们为此付出了代价。
事实上，我已经对一些英文社区的提案选择了“降低标准”。
比如：
我当时并不想被贴上“过于严苛”的标签，所以选择了保守克制。
结果呢？
钱批了，项目没动，交付失踪，责任无人承担。
大多数人投了赞成票，但结果是错误的。
这就是典型的“群体乐观”演变成“群体失误”。
盲目信任不是去中心化，而是一种更温和的中心化风险。
专业治理需要的是规则和结构，不只是“信任”。
2. 我已经降低标准了，但换来的却是谩骂。
在 Omiga 提案中，我只是出于审慎要求更多细节。
这是一个匿名项目，我希望确保 DAO 不会再次踩雷。
结果，我在中文社区被公开嘲讽，说我“管太多”“太挑剔”。
但我想问一句：资金还没发放前问清楚，有什么错？
3. 审核严格不是苛刻，而是对社区负责。
大量经验和事实证明：审核越严谨，项目团队在执行阶段就越认真。
宽松随意的审批流程，培养的不是信任，而是投机。
Palmyra 的问题不是我太严，
而是我们不够严。
4. 你说有些团队不具备专业背景，正因为如此我们才更需要“标准”。
所以我提出了非常基础的审核框架，例如：
- 工作量预估（人月数）
- 单人月价格
- 简单的工作量与报价比对依据
这并不是“企业官僚主义”，
而是在任何严肃的工程或采购流程中最基本的申请依据。
但 Jordan 却反对我这些建议，说我这是“歧视”。
这显然是误解。
任何行业中，基于成本/单位的估算和报价都是最基本的公平标准。
DAO 的资金不是象征性的——是有限且真实的资源，值得我们认真捍卫。
我并不是想让任何人难堪。
但我不能假装“放宽标准、友善一点”就能带来更好的项目结果——因为事实恰好相反。
如果我们真的希望 DAO 治理成熟，那就不能总在“出问题后”才想着修补。
真正的标准不是阻碍创新，而是保护创新。
再次感谢你愿意进行这场坦率而理性的讨论。