就这个具体的事情我觉得是小事。如果考虑潜移默化的影响，我同意你和 @Hanssen ，挺值得重视的。以前这些影响可能没考虑过，现在摆出来讨论挺好的。
4 Likes
To correct the manual intervention
3 Likes
我个人支持 RosenBridge 这个提案本身，但过程中确实出现了一些值得警惕的问题苗头。感谢 @Hanssen 及时提出这些重要的观察。
中国有句古话：“千里之堤，溃于蚁穴”。这些看似细微的问题，实际上触及了 DAO 治理的根基——公平、透明、去中心化。庆幸的是，我们及时发现并公开讨论了这些问题。如果能在后续杜绝类似情况，将有效巩固我们正在构建的 DAO 治理之堤。
我的小建议是：
- 论坛信任等级 ：应避免人为调整，这会破坏机制的公平性。如确有必要，需建立透明标准并向社区公示。
- 团队成员发言 ：欢迎以个人身份发表对提案的看法，但请避免使用团队职位头衔。带头衔发言容易被视为「官方团队」站台，既可能给团队带来负面影响，也会导致治理趋向中心化，这不是我们期望的方向。
I personally support the RosenBridge proposal itself, but there are indeed some concerning issues that emerged during the process. Thank you @Hanssen for bringing these important observations to light.
There’s a Chinese saying: “A thousand-mile levee can collapse because of an ant hole” (千里之堤，溃于蚁穴). These seemingly minor issues actually touch the very foundation of DAO governance—fairness, transparency, and decentralization. Fortunately, we’ve identified and openly discussed these problems in time. If we can prevent similar situations going forward, it will effectively strengthen the governance levee we’re building.
My two cents:
- Forum Trust Levels : Artificial adjustments should be avoided as they undermine the fairness of the forum mechanism. If absolutely necessary, transparent criteria must be established and disclosed to the community.
- Team Member Statements : Members are welcome to share personal views on proposals, but please avoid using official team titles. Speaking with titles can be perceived as institutional endorsement, which may negatively impact the team’s reputation and push governance toward centralization—neither of which we want to see.
7 Likes
非常赞同，该领域本来就是基于DAO建立的，不是说本件事对结果影响大小，而是它在这里开了很不好的头
4 Likes
那是否可以详细解释一下整个过程的来龙去脉，是何人因何事人工干预的，干预的理由是什么，后续权限如何管理，是否还会有此事发生。
3 Likes
这点我也很想搞清楚，我认为这点非常重要。
例如我很多年前工作中审批的大量项目过程中，都有明确的“关联交易”的相关条款。项目实施方不得与发包方有任何的利益关系，需要澄清，防止内部的公权私用。
我觉得这点可以探讨的细节有很多：
例如基金会成员与“荐币”的KOL之间的界限、信息披露等等，感觉这些在传统金融行业有很多规则，持牌荐股师和公司之间的利益关系澄清、持股情况公布等等（香港的报纸上持牌荐股师最后都有澄清的）。
如何避免CKB的价格受到操纵的指责？
这些都需要专业人士指导。我不是金融行业的，很多也不懂。
3 Likes
我感觉基金会人员有权利表达出自己观点和喜好，但尽量避免起到引导作用，需说明有无利益关系
6 Likes
感谢所有参加这个讨论的伙伴们。因为有你们，这个社区才能在讨论中成型、进步。你们是社区的建设者。
Thank you to everyone who participated in this discussion. Because of you, this community has been able to take shape and progress through discussion. You are the builders of this community.
投票是 Community Fund DAO 中最重要，也最神圣的部分。投票意味着我们选择相信社区达成的共识，而不是某个组织或哲人王的裁决。
这不意味着我觉得中心化的决策不该存在。我们有星火计划，基金会也可以选择直接给项目资助（能透明些的话会更好）。这些渠道设计来就是为了高效地使用资金，但同时也连带着更多责任限制，避免盲目的、依个人喜好的浪费。
回到投票上，我坚信最重要的事情是尊重社区的意见。我们可以制作工具、写介绍文章来帮助社区成员在投票前对提案有更全面的了解；我们可以宣传提案的存在，让更多成员用自己投票的权利来帮助社区发展；我们可以从自己的角度分析提案对社区的帮助，说服其他人。
但在这个过程中，我们有不应该做的事情。总的来说，我们不应该以任何方式，显性地或隐性地帮助社区成员更「简单」或者「无脑」投票，这是对他们投票权利的玷污，是对认真思考后投票的人的侮辱。而借用权威组织的名义正是这样的行为：这些组织并没有权力告诉成员怎么投票，也不对投票的结果负责。这更多是要求对投票有影响力的组织注意到这件事、要求人们自我约束。
再次感谢所有参与讨论的伙伴。
Voting is the most vital and sacred part of the Community Fund DAO. It signifies our choice to trust the consensus reached by the community, rather than the judgment of a specific organization or a philosopher king.
This does not mean I believe centralized decision-making should not exist. We have the Spark Program, and the Foundation can also choose to fund projects directly (though more transparency would be even better). These channels are designed for the efficient use of capital, but they also carry stricter responsibilities and constraints to avoid blind or personal preference-driven waste.
Returning to the topic of voting, I firmly believe that the most important thing is to respect the community’s opinion. We can build tools and write introductory articles to help community members gain a more comprehensive understanding of proposals before they vote; we can promote the existence of proposals to encourage more members to exercise their right to vote for the community’s development; we can analyze how a proposal benefits the community from our own perspectives to persuade others.
However, there are things we should not do during this process. Generally speaking, we should not, in any way – whether explicitly or implicitly – help community members vote more “easily” or “mindlessly.” This is a desecration of their right to vote and an insult to those who vote after serious reflection. Borrowing the name of an authoritative organization is precisely such a behavior: these organizations have no authority to tell members how to vote, nor are they responsible for the outcomes of the vote. This is more about calling on organizations with influence over voting to take notice and practice self-restraint.
Once again, my thanks to all the partners participating in this discussion.
11 Likes
the rationale is explained here, Some questions about the recent proposal vote - #26 by jm9k
As far as things go from here, I mentioned in a post above that new users can request from admins to be moved from Trust Level 0 to 1, however this is the only intervention that should take place.
6 Likes
This has just come to my attention. As i see it, any unfair advantages implemented in order to pass a proposal, regardless of the percieved minimal impact is unacceptable– As the differerence can come down to a singular weighted vote
6 Likes
我看公众募集资金的组织要求基本都有COI披露（利益冲突披露），还有详细的模版，包括“ 身份与角色、关联方清单、过去12–24 个月内的经济关系、资产持仓与利益敏感性、控制与权限关系、回避承诺”等方面。
DAO1.1是不是应该加进去？
2 Likes