Opinions on CKB Community DAO v1

[neon.bit]

@woodbury.bit

According to the original proposal document — which was approved by the community — the stated completion date was Q4 of 2024. As of today, no development work has been started on the CKB-related modules outlined in the proposal.
This is an objective and verifiable fact.

Firstly, I appreciate your considered reply and the general principles you mention are ones that we are in agreement with.

An ETA is exactly that: an estimate. From experience, which I’m sure you can relate to, project development can be delayed - sometimes substantially - when there are multiple fronts to work on and the business is growing. There are many examples of this within the CKB ecosystem historically and currently. This is different to a situation where a team takes money and disappears.

The crux of the matter is not that delays can happen, it’s that communication on the forum should be more regular to advise accordingly, especially to benefit people who are not regularly on social media platforms. Here I agree with you that there are important lessons to take forward.

@woodbury.bit

In DAO governance, what ultimately matters is delivery and accountability. As we saw in William’s case, the most appropriate and transparent course of action would be to
return the unused initial payment to the DAO treasury and re-submit the proposal once substantial progress has been made.

In William’s case, he determined that he could not action the proposal, and therefore returned the funds. This is different to a project that is experiencing delays but committed to fulfilling its obligations.

The bigger issue in my view, which has been touched on, is how longer roadmaps can be adversely affected by coin volatility. There should be some scope to re-appraise projects with ongoing projects in cases where it may be necessary to adjust the grant amount in CKB terms. But I also like the idea of a community-initiated re-appraisal of the entire grant if concerns arise.

Allowing a project with zero visible execution to remain publicly listed in front of the community damages trust, credibility, and the fairness of the DAO process — especially for other developers who are operating in good faith and delivering real results.

Context is important, as we have discussed.

@woodbury.bit

Funding proposals must be submitted directly by the team executing the work, to ensure:

• Full transparency;
• Accurate technical communication;
• Clear accountability.

This proposal — submitted by a third party, not the developers themselves — has directly contributed to the confusion, misalignment, and lack of clarity we are facing now.

I would like to avoid reiterating myself, but as mentioned earlier, helping projects through the process does not need to compromise any of the important aspects you mentioned. A project should naturally be heavily involved in authoring a proposal and interacting directly with the community, but may need help in ensuring it meets the standards set by the DAO, or may need help in the technicalities of DAO participation. A project can submit a proposal and still fall into the same issues raised, so we should not mistake correlation for causation. Palmyra has communicated with the community on various platforms; not doing so on this forum is an omission but not a systemic failure to communicate.