I must have forgot where to pick up my paycheck 
1 Like
我确实不清楚，建议回复过的人可以澄清下。
但我觉得这里不应该混淆的是，是否利益相关，和你的帖子有几个点击，有几个关注，之间没什么必然关系吧。要获得更多关注和支持，不是应该去ckb社区，例如微信群tg群，推上面拉关注？社区里面不拿钱的人总是多过拿钱的人吧？毕竟不是所有人每天都关注这个论坛，关注了看过也不一定留言。在这里原帖有22个爱心，是可以看到具体哪些人点赞的，这些人也不都是拿钱的吧？点赞不留言也是一种态度表达了。
我不了解，被社区踢是指什么？你不是可以在这里发言吗？不过这和这个提案和帖子好像都没什么关系？不如另外开个帖子单独聊，没必要在人家帖子下面歪楼。
如果你希望有多人来讨论，不是应该去社区其他地方拉人才能实现吗？为什么对愿意参与讨论的人抱怨？我不太理解。
这是说jordan吗？之前我不清楚，就这个提案比v1好多了吧，而且执行规则里面我看是要选社区代表参与的，也不是他说了算。
你肯定是新人? 最近才来的？SeeDAO的兄弟？
没有点击说明根本没人去研究问题出在哪里。项目的前评估、后评价根本没人执行。我在我的DAO修改提案里面已经写了。但是有人去看么？只剩下利益相关方的无尽的辩解，以及强硬的坚持。我并没有说我说的对，我只是希望除了利益相关方有人去讨论，去看，有人么？
我问了一个前辈，前辈就一句话”DAO很难做成。“
CKB社区已经没有深入探讨了，还不如当年的黑子群。那时候大家还会讨论和扯淡，现在都是小伙伴给我发链接让我看。我也不愿意看，我投资CKB大幅亏损，为什么还让我建设？
你不了解就对了。没被CKB中文社区踢过的，都不是老人。
我是去年看到rgb++那波加入的，后面持续关注发现ckb有很深的技术积累，社区（主要是英文tg和推上）很活跃，慢慢买入持有ckb。尤其是看到还有项目在搞DAO认真讨论治理规则也觉得很难得。虽然以太那波dao基本都失败了，我还是觉得ckb有公链和二级增发收入做基础，不一样，当时能想到这些应该说很有远见的。
你后面提到的这些我不了解，说实话感觉和这个帖子没什么关系，不过也是增加了我一些知识，也是为论坛活跃度做贡献了，感谢 
。我就打住不继续歪楼了。
感谢你的回复。我只是对你说的”臭炒币的“历史来源进行一下解释。（这是当年项目方工作人员赠予我这样的散户投资者的，我只是在帖子里面引用了一下来讽刺内部利益集团。）尊重来自于彼此（项目方和散户投资者），而不是单方面的。
希望你能看看所有的Nervos Community DAO历史项目审核过程，每个项目的审核流程，了解一下所有人的背景，说过什么话。
谢晗剑希望建立的，是一个相互制衡、公正透明的项目审核体系，而不是一个充满漏洞、任由趋利行为主导的“资源分配模型”。从系统动态平衡的角度来说，如果一个治理系统只存在单向的正向激励与利益分配，却缺乏逆向反馈机制，那么最终的结果就是系统崩溃。这是任何控制系统的基本原理。在这种结构下，我所起到的角色，其实就像一个“反向阻尼器”——不是为了对抗谁，而是为了帮助系统稳定下来。
但遗憾的是，目前这个体系里，似乎只有我一个人扮演这个角色。我希望未来能有更多人愿意站出来“挑刺”，而不是陷入“你好我好大家好”的集体迎合氛围。如果没有健康的批评与纠偏，所谓的“共识治理”就可能沦为新一轮的“人民公社式自我感动”。
Unfortunately, you posts are laced with strawmen like this which show you don’t know what you’re talking about in your hubris. You are crossing the line of civility by resorting to baseless allegations in this and subsequent posts.
I have not received any funds in relation to Palmyra, not from the DAO and not from them either. Not before and not after. The vast majority of my contributions to the community in the last 4 years have been unpaid and voluntary. I have talked to countless projects, and spent countless hours, for the benefit of CKB without expecting any personal remuneration. You are arguing from a position of ignorance and only embarrassing yourself by doing so.
Perhaps, you mistook my cordial tone for weakness. Recall when you bizarrely waved through a $130k proposal for an anonymous, unverified memecoin project with absolutely no attempt at due dilligence or investigation. Did you forget your “Fortune 500 strict auditing procedures” on that occasion? Did you “consider the DAO money as your own” during this inexplicable lapse of judgement, or are you performatively virtue signalling now hoping that readers aren’t aware that you apply these standards selectively? These are rhetorical questions as I have no interest in replying to any more vexatious screeds issued in bad faith saturated comically with bold font.
It’s a shame because beneath the pontificating, there are good points you make which are worth consideration without needing to be used as cover for misguided attacks. If you can return to respectful, good-faith discourse and retract your false accusations, only then will I dignify your comments with a response.
3 Likes
I’m awaiting his proposal for the ‘Fortune 500 inspired legacy DAO system’ we will all know and love. 
I do believe it will be good to see his version, as he knows a lot of stuff about legacy centralised tech companies and perhaps CKB can be beneficial with centralised comparisons .
It would be nice to see him add something to the community once in a while and this could be his area of expertise with his chance in the last 7 years to produce something tangible. Do a service to show his big community vibes and love for the project he talks about so eloquently. The proof is in the work not in the words.
So when/if ever, that materialises, we should all take a look. More than one DAO can materialise or run in contention for votes or exist permanently.
Having said that, I’m quite sure this proposal that Jordan has produced is just a base scenario for something that evolves over time, as long as the system allows us to make those changes within the framework.
A DAO system should be structured like Lego. Things can be built over time or reformed in some way.
That’s not to say we should ignore problems or issues before its voted to full consensus.
Some points written here are very valid.
Others ignore the timeframe or the technical flaws that just cannot be done until the tech evolves more (i.e Can Ai agents… or a version of, do or verify things within the DAO structure in the future?)
As the tech evolves, so do the solutions. Anything is better than the current system within this proposal including payments to the developers in stable coins. What I’m interested in is the perspective if it will provide loop holes where things cannot be changed over time like we currently see where people can abstain and sway the voting process because it needs to meet a required threshhold.
1 Like
Let me clarify several key points:
1.I never boasted about my Fortune 500 experience.
In the discussion at 关于DAO的三点改进提议 - #7 by jm9k,
it was Jordan (jm9k) who repeatedly cited his work experience at Fortune 500 companies while opposing my proposal to ban proxy submissions for DAO projects.
so I merely responded for context — not for self-glorification.
2.Throughout this discussion, I have focused exclusively on proposing rule improvements.
I discussed issues, not people.
3.Palmyra’s failure to deliver, long silence, and lack of accountability are objective facts.
Instead of facing these issues head-on,
you chose deflection, misdirection, and absurd insinuations — such as Neon hinting that somehow I “pocketed” Palmyra’s DAO funds.
If that’s the narrative you prefer, fine, let me “confess” sarcastically:
“Yes, all the Palmyra project funds were stuffed into my pocket.
I didn’t do any work, didn’t deliver anything, and didn’t explain to the community.
Now I hope everyone just forgets about it — OK?”
This is the absurd reality you are trying to manufacture.
4.Even more ironically, you keep claiming they “serve the community,”
yet they systematically ignore Palmyra’s disaster, the flaws of the proxy system, and the broader issue of fund mismanagement.
Can those who truly care about the DAO’s health remain silent about these fundamental problems?
5.True DAO governance means facing issues, not burying them.
True maturity is measured not by how many people “smile and nod,”
but by whether the system can absorb criticism and course-correct when necessary.
Otherwise, all we are building is a new “"The Tragedy of the Commons”,“People’s Commune” — where self-congratulation replaces real accountability.
Finally, let me state clearly:
Real issues deserve real answers.
Genuine suggestions deserve real discussions.
Not collective deflection and convenient ignorance.
首先，我想澄清几点事实：
1.在 关于DAO的三点改进提议 - #7 by jm9k 的讨论中，
正是 Jordan（jm9k）在反对我提出的“禁止代理人申报项目”的提议时，反复引用了他自己在《财富》500 强企业工作的经历。
我才出于必要进行了简要说明。
这不是炫耀，而是回应他们拿“自己背景”当挡箭牌的逻辑。
2.在整个讨论过程中，我始终聚焦在提出规则改进建议。
我讨论的是问题，不是针对个人。
3.Palmyra 项目执行失败、交付缺失、长时间无更新，是客观事实。
面对这些问题，你们没有一个人选择正面回答，
反而各种转移话题、诡辩、甚至试图将责任模糊到提问者身上。
尤其 Neon 的发言，
试图暗示 Palmyra 的资金好像发到了我账户上一样，
这种倒打一耙的手法，本身就是对整个 DAO 讨论氛围的伤害。
既然如此，干脆我来“认领”好了：
“是的，Palmyra 项目的资金都塞到我兜里了。
我没干活，也没做交付，也没向社区解释。
现在我希望大家都忘了这件事，OK？”
你们想要掩盖的荒谬局面，就是这样。
4.更讽刺的是，在讨论中，
你们全部自称“为社区付出”，
却对 Palmyra、对代理制的问题闭口不谈，
对社区资金的失控状况视而不见。
请问，真正关心 DAO 健康的人，会回避这些根本性问题吗？
DAO 的治理，应该是面对问题，解决问题。
而不是靠集体诡辩和沉默来掩盖系统漏洞。
真正成熟的社区，是可以容纳“挑刺者”的。
如果所有人都只想着“你好我好大家好”，那 DAO 就真的变成了新的“公地悲剧”,“人民公社”。
最后，我想强调一句：
有问题就应该直面问题，
有建议就应该认真讨论建议。
而不是靠集体诡辩和无视问题，来掩盖系统性漏洞。
2 Likes