@woodbury.bit 爬楼看了这么多，相信你是出于好意和热爱说这些，很热心很好的总结和建议，大大的赞！
第二是想说你有些话真的有点… 比如说
你这么说不是在说参与讨论的人都是为了好处来的，只有你是真爱粉？这样对其他发言的人其实也不太尊重吧，尊重应该是相互的。如果有人说你是“臭炒币”的，那个人是这里发言的人吗？没说过这句话的人看了可能会觉得莫名其妙。
第三我的感觉是这个提案可能达不到你的标准，但从提案和回复都看得出来楼主也确实研究了v1的问题，有过认真思考，并不是像你说的没有总结反思，如果能落实肯定比放着一个死气沉沉的v1不管要好。我反而觉得v1存在时间太长了，一年就应该总结一次进化一次，现在都应该v3 v4 v5 了。反正无论怎么弄不可能完美的，不如进化快一点。
第四我觉得如果这个提案离你预期很远，不如整理下思路另外提一个提案，我看jordan也提到过这个点。如果这么多意见最后都吸收，这个提案实际上也就变成另一个提案了，感觉不太现实而且也会有类似A提案但想法都是B的代理提案的问题。还不如另外提一个，最终无论是从里面选一个也好还是两个一起上都挺好，不一定要在一个提案里面你死我活吧。
@jm9k 最后一个问题是，我不太清楚的是这个提案后续会怎么落实呢？这是一个 v1 的提案，需要 v1 投票吗？如果是这样需要申请多少ckb? 还是在呼吁成立另外一个 dao v2? 和 v1 平行？还是怎么说？ 是否能回答一下？
(deepseek translation)
After reading through all the messages, I believe you said all this out of goodwill and passion. Such enthusiastic and great summaries and suggestions—big thumbs up!
Secondly, I want to say that some of your words are a bit… well, for example:
Aren’t you implying that everyone else joining the discussion is only here for personal gain, and you’re the only true believer? That’s actually quite disrespectful to others participating in the conversation. Respect should be mutual. If someone called you a “shitcoin trader,” was it someone who’s actively posting here? Those who never said such things might find this remark baffling.
Thirdly, my impression is that while this proposal might not meet your standards, both the proposal and the replies show that the OP has indeed studied the issues with v1 and put serious thought into it—it’s not as if they’ve failed to reflect, as you suggested. If implemented, it would definitely be better than leaving a stagnant v1 as it is. In fact, I think v1 has existed for too long—it should have been reviewed and evolved yearly. By now, we should already be at v3, v4, or v5. Anyway, nothing can ever be perfect, so why not iterate faster?
Fourthly, if this proposal falls far short of your expectations, why not organize your thoughts and submit a separate proposal? I noticed Jordan also mentioned this point. If too many differing opinions are absorbed into this proposal, it would essentially turn into a different one altogether—which seems unrealistic and could lead to issues like “Proposal A being a proxy for entirely different ideas from Proposal B.” It might be better to just propose a separate one. In the end, whether one is selected or both are implemented together, either approach would be fine. There’s no need for a life-or-death struggle within a single proposal.
@jm9k The last question is, I’m unclear about how this proposal will be implemented. Is this a v1 proposal that requires a v1 vote? If so, how much CKB needs to be requested? Or is it calling for the creation of a separate DAO v2, running in parallel with v1? How exactly would that work? Could you clarify?