Thank you for your explanation.
That said, I think it’s important to clarify one key fact:
The progress updates you’re referring to around the broader Palmyra project are not directly related to the scope or timeline of the specific proposal that was submitted to the DAO.
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.
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.
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.
In addition, I want to re-emphasize a core governance principle I’ve spoken about before:
I strongly oppose any form of proxy or third-party proposal submission.
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.
Finally, the Palmyra case is a strong reminder that the DAO must establish a clear exit mechanism for projects that fail to deliver according to plan.
Without such a safeguard, stalled or inactive projects can erode both funding efficiency and community trust.
感谢你的详细说明。
不过，需要澄清一个核心事实：
你现在所介绍的 Palmyra 项目进展，与本次提案中所列出的计划内容和时间节点并没有任何直接关系。
根据最初提交并通过的提案文件，项目明确承诺的交付时间为 2024 年第 4 季度结束前，而截至目前，与该提案直接相关的任何 CKB 模块开发工作尚未启动。这点社区成员已多次确认，是客观事实。
在 DAO 的治理逻辑中，最重要的是 结果与交付。就像我们在 William 案例中所看到的，最合适、最透明的做法应该是：
将尚未使用的首付款退回 DAO 资金账户，并在有实质性进展后重新提交新提案。
一个长期未启动、又仍然挂在 DAO 名单里的项目，不仅对社区信任造成消耗，也严重影响提案方的信誉。这种情况对于所有正在认真申报和执行项目的开发者而言，都是不公平的。
另外，我也想再次强调一个治理原则：
我坚决反对任何形式的“代理人”或“第三方代提交”项目行为。
DAO 的资金应该直接发放给执行团队本人，这样才能确保：
- 治理的透明度；
- 技术沟通的准确性；
- 问责机制的可落地性。
而这个项目就是典型的“外部人代提交”，与真正开发团队存在信息壁垒与责任模糊，正是导致今日混乱的根源。
最后，Palmyra 的提案也提醒我们：对于所有未按计划推进的项目，DAO 应建立明确的资助退出机制。
否则，一旦项目长期停滞又无法问责，将严重损害 DAO 的资金效率与社区信任。