共识的形成和推进

中文 加密经济学
,
1

共识的形成和推进

看了一个关于新项目的赞助提案，有一些不仅仅是局限在这个提案的感触，特写下此文，以总结自观和交流

首先要说的是，每一个在社区里或留言或默默关注的人都是实实在在有所付出的人，每个人的时间和精力都是有限和宝贵的，把它放在哪里就是对哪里的相对认可和重视(即便是想去某处偷东西，也是认为此处比他处更可能获取价值)

所以说，在这个社区的每一个人对CKB都有比其他路人高的多得多的了解和期待，这是一个事实也是一种能量，我们完全有方法把它凝聚起来，其过程由浅入深步步推进

我们现在开始：

团队核心成员多次强调我们的目标是建立一个集市不是教堂。这个大方向是对的，但问题是现在生态的发展可不是集市的方向，一部分人员认为恰恰很像是教堂，我认为更像是一种小部分利益体的原始丛林状态

你们想要（声称）建立集市，但是你们不知道如何建立，这就是当前最大的冲突和矛盾

当然这样的说法本身已经包含极大的善意，它的潜台词是你们真的不懂在探索在努力而不是装糊涂的拖延诓骗

如果建立集市这个方向的共识能够达成，我们继续到下一步，如何正确建立集市？

集市，买卖的地方，若干买家和若干卖家组成，就这么简单，那么作为团队来说，思考的方向就是怎样（在保证集市安全的情况下）为买家和卖家提供服务？而为了这个服务可以持续，这个服务的成本如何解决？

这样的服务方向有很多不一一列举，仅仅说一个非常重要的必须品-稳定币，这个买卖双方的价值参考标的

其如此重要的原因是，不管线上还是线下，用当地本币（极其映射币）作为交易锚定物才有最大的价值稳定性和流通性（而用其他比如链上代币有太大的波动性）

至此，共识来到了一个集市需要本币稳定币，进一步推进，谁以及如何来做这个（去中心化）稳定币？

理论上说任何人都可以，但实际上大概只能由公链团队或者某个项目团队完成，具体方式是把一定代币和稳定币一起放一个智能合约里让用户可以自由兑换实现

智能合约里的每个代币才是真正的公共物品，等它被兑换出来到个人的钱包又变成私人物品

某种概念上来说，一个成功生态就是公共物品和私人物品之间良性转化的过程

对CKB来说，我们太缺少公共物品了，尤其是核心公共物品-它的存在可以让所有人（所有买家和卖家）获益

再回到关于提案的话题，是的，这个好像是从区块链生态发展中一直以来存在的方案，但我们也许应该回头想想？这样的模式真的是最优选择吗？

我们再次从共识的角度出发，分清其层次和逻辑

现在的提案模式是“我认为需要做这个工程且我来接单完成它”，我想一些朋友已经意识到我在说什么了，且会露出一缕意味深长的微笑（你懂的）

这里面不可避免有说不清的“可能利益空间”

所以要改变，也就是需要更进一步的共识

方案也很简单，把提出方案的人和接单工程的人之间的必然关系切断即可

即任何人都可以提出某种需求，然后大家互相讨论，总结收集大家公认的需求，然后再把这个需求公开招标即可

各种基金会里的代币可以看做某种公共物品，拿出其中一部分，换成大家所需要的某种工具或产品，也是另一种公共物品，也就是公共物品换了另一种存在状态，继续为众人服务，可谓物尽其用

而相对应的的，我们需要尽力避免如下的情况：

1 没有公共物品可用（只会是一盘散沙）

2 公共物品没有得到正确的转化（而是被私人违规攫取）

共识是一点点和一步步形成的，从最简单的认知开始，用成本最低的方式开始

2 Likes
2

某个工具或方案的提议权和实现权分开，其明显优势如下：

1 作为绝大多数不会技术和代码但是有观察和思考的这部分人，可以贡献自己的力量（当然是不求回报或不以回报为前提的）我们应该认识到这个力量并使用好它

2 作为技术人员对项目了解后自己报价竞标，这有助于让这个项目获得其“绝对公允报价”，让包括技术人员在内的整个生态获益

且这样的开源模式和非开源模式是共存的关系

开源模式：

点子构思（众人提供和精选，免费）
落地实现（技术人员竞标实现，后续代码开源且整个移交给官方，项目无代币，无收费）

整个流程有益于整个生态，正向循环

闭源模式：

点子构思（自己获取灵感）
落地实现（自己组建团队，后续代码不公开，项目自己发币，用户交互另外收费）

这个适合有自己独特创意且能自己完成落地的朋友，可作为生态的补充，但肯定是极少数的存在

1 Like
3

我希望基金会能出来解释一下生态团队(所谓的集市里的商贩)一个个离开集市的原因, 不是类似有更好的机会这样的托词, 而是为什么他们投入了这么多精力, 却几乎没有一个团队留下的问题

2 Likes
5

Is there any chance that the foundation will come to explain this

1 Like
6

it seems self-explanatory, teams are drawn in by opportunity and leave after the opportunity they perceived doesn’t materialize. It’s not different from LP’s moving liquidity between L2’s

Much of the challenge can be attributed to the high level of upfront investment required to build on CKB (high investment of time/effort requires commensurate returns), which has been drastically lowered recently (in the last couple months) due to advancements in AI.

5 Likes
告别 - 祝一切顺利
7

@matt_ckb I get your point, and I’m not disagreeing with the overall direction.

But what the community is really asking for is not only why this happened — it’s how we make sure it doesn’t keep happening.

To be honest, “teams come for opportunity and leave when that opportunity doesn’t materialize” explains the symptom more than the root cause. The more structural issue seems to be expected economics: when upfront effort is high, ROI is uncertain, and timing risk is long, the expected return becomes negative for many teams.

This should be one of the top topics now, especially after multiple teams that had spent years building in the CKB ecosystem have left. That has a real impact on teams that are still watching from the sidelines.

Even with AI lowering some of the technical entry barriers recently, CKB still carries higher development uncertainty and higher execution cost than many other chains. So I think the key issue is less about tooling alone and more about expected value.

If that is the case, could the foundation share a concrete action plan for attracting teams and keeping teams here, instead of only giving a general explanation?

And I want to ask this directly:
If the issue is truly “negative expected value,” how is the foundation going to correct that?

Could the foundation share a practical roadmap by timeline — 90 days / 180 days / 12 months — so the community can see how this moves from words to execution?

8

This wasn’t the question that was asked.

While this may not be the proper forum to clarify the foundation’s role, I can see how valuable this conversation is.

Let’s get to it: Iteration is a necessary component of innovation, no ecosystem is immune to it. The question is not how to hold on to as many projects as possible, it is how to continue increasing the size of the ecosystem. It is natural that most projects will not succeed, there is nothing that can be done to change this.

The premise of this is flawed. The industry as a whole carries quite high uncertainty, CKB is not special in this respect. It is more about CKB being interesting/appealing to developers, rather than them feeling some sense of certainty about building on CKB. There is plenty of work ongoing to make CKB interesting to developers, you can browse the forum to find this.

The only caveat here is that stablecoin/institutional L1 projects are now seen as providing certainty, and CKB does not today compete with these projects.

This goes back to expectations needing to be clarified. The foundation will work to attract innovators and developers, this can be done with content marketing, hackathons and useful tooling, but attracting and keeping teams is an entirely different domain.

The results that have left you unsatisfied follow extensive efforts to attract and keep teams, unfortunately I can’t offer anything further here. CKB has always pursued it’s own path, if you feel another chain has a more certain future, there is nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise.

CKB’s success depends on the decisions that were made 8 years ago, not on the plans of the foundation today. If you don’t believe this statement, we are living in two very different worlds.

Your post highlights a communication gap, there is a good deal of intention to close that. I have confidence it will improve, but if a team feels that CKB is negative EV, it is probably not a good fit.

The right teams will see CKB as a blue ocean, full of possibility they can’t find anywhere else. It’s the foundation’s job to make CKB well-known among those teams and to make sure that those possibilities are clear to everyone who is paying attention. While I know more information about how we do this would help, I don’t think this provides what you’re looking for, which brings things back to clarifying expectations.

I do feel like we are on the same page here, however we are looking at different sides of the equation. While you would like to see the foundation take action to change EV while holding the EV-measurer constant, I am considering different EV-measurers to change EV.

CKB is too unique to be lost in a competitive fight with other chains.

Within the ecosystem, any action the foundation takes to favor one team, inevitably hurts a possible future competitor. I do believe that this kind of action has contributed to the lack of permanence you have observed. While justifiable in the bootstrapping phase, we are well into a mature phase of the project and this kind of thinking should mature as well.

I appreciate the discourse, I can see that we have very different views. I do believe that there is value to be found in both.

5 Likes