I don’t think we should underestimate what the CKB Community Fund DAO represents.
Just like Bitcoin introduced the revolutionary concept of randomized validators through PoW, the CKB DAO opens up something equally powerful — a structure where ordinary community members can participate in project evaluation and governance.
Isn’t that a remarkable innovation in the Web3 world?
Of course, the DAO still has many flaws — and that’s exactly why I put forward improvement suggestions.
They’re not complaints for the sake of complaining, but based on actual lessons from past project failures, with the hope of helping build something better.
When I worked as a full-time IT budget controller in a Fortune 500 company, every project I approved was audited by both an internal audit department and an external accounting firm.
But in the DAO — who’s responsible for supervision?
Who ensures funds are used properly?
Who validates whether a proposal is worth funding?
I don’t want to keep pointing out problems in individual proposals. What I truly want is a more decentralized and structured review mechanism.
But realistically — how many people will take a proposal seriously if it doesn’t directly affect them?
Take this proposal for example:
At the very least, it brings original ideas and independent thinking. But how many have seriously engaged with it?
The future of the DAO should not be built on preserving voices of power, but on building mechanisms that continuously improve and distribute responsibility.
The core problem isn’t the mechanism — it’s the arrogance and bias shown by some early insiders.
We should not let the CKB DAO become a one-voice system like the Ethereum Foundation.
To make this DAO truly trustworthy, fair, and effective, we must rely on institutional safeguards, not individual influence — mechanisms that constrain power, not entrench it.
我不认为我们应该低估 CKB Community Fund DAO 所代表的意义。
就像比特币通过 PoW 创造性地引入“随机验证人”的制度一样，CKB DAO 同样也开创了一种新的可能性 —— 普通社区成员也可以参与到项目监督与治理中来。这难道不是 Web3 世界中真正值得肯定的一次制度创新吗？
也正是因为 DAO 还有很多不完善的地方，所以我才会提出这些建设性的改进建议 —— 不是为了批评而批评，而是基于过去失败的经验总结，希望能推动这个机制真正变好。
我在专职 IT 预算工作中，我所审核和管理的每一个项目，背后都有内部审计部和外部审计的监督。而在 DAO 里呢？谁负责监督资金的使用？谁对项目交付结果负责？谁来判断这些提案是否值得花钱？
我并不希望每次都对个别提案提出意见。我真正希望的，是建立起一个更去中心化、结构化的审核机制。
但现实是，有多少人会认真对待一个“与自己无关”的提案？
比如这个提案：
它至少有创意和独立思考的价值，但真正参与讨论、认真评估的人又有多少？
DAO 的未来，不是靠维持话语权，而是靠持续完善的机制来推动。
问题不在机制本身，而在于部分内部元老所展现出的“傲慢”与“偏见”。
我们不能让 CKB DAO 变成另一个 ETH 基金会那样的“一言堂”。
要让 DAO 真正走向可信、公正、高效，就必须通过清晰的制度与流程去约束权力、打破固化，而不是放任其依赖个人声望运行。