Quick governance question regarding the forum voting phase for Community Fund proposals:
Should votes from hidden (private) profiles be counted in the final tally?
While Metaforo verifies that these votes are backed by $CKB deposits, the lack of profile transparency can create a bit of a black box for the community. It becomes difficult to distinguish between long-term organic holders and more concentrated voting power.
I’d also be interested in hearing how the Nervos team and other long-time community members think about balancing voter privacy with governance transparency in this context.
2 Likes
Then we would need a layer to verfiy the wallets of communitymembers and bind them to their username. I personally don’t think this approach would be right privacy wise. But on the other hand a mechanism that lets users verify their community profile and weigh their vote more strongly sounds interesting to me.
In general i think, who got the bytes should have the absolut right to vote. (besides exchanges maybe and proofen bad actors)
1 Like
感谢大家的讨论。作为 DAO 协调员，我先说一下目前的规则情况和技术方向。
规则层面： v1.0 规则在创建投票的操作指引中要求勾选"Show who voted"，但并没有一条专门针对"投票者身份是否必须公开"的正式元规则。即将上线的 v1.1 规则同样没有对此做出明确规定。
技术层面： 关于钱包验证和身份绑定，v1.1 平台采用基于 Web5 的技术架构，以 did:ckb 作为核心身份体系，投票权重直接从链上 Nervos DAO 存款读取。这意味着投票者的身份和权重在链上本身是可验证的。不过关于平台具体的实现细节（如投票记录的可见性、DID 的展示方式等），可以请 @_magicsheep 补充说明。
如果社区成员认为有必要就"投票者隐私与治理透明度之间的平衡"建立明确规则，按照治理流程，可以发起一项元规则修改提案，交由社区投票决定。
Thanks for the discussion. As the DAO coordinator, let me share where things stand on both the rules and the technical side.
On the rules side: The v1.0 rules include “Show who voted: checked” as part of the poll setup instructions on Metaforo, but there is no formal meta-rule specifically addressing whether voter identity must be publicly disclosed. The upcoming v1.1 rules likewise do not include a dedicated provision on this matter.
On the technical side: Regarding wallet verification and identity binding, the v1.1 platform is built on a Web5 architecture with did:ckb as the core identity system, where voting weight is read directly from on-chain Nervos DAO deposits. This means voter identity and weight are inherently verifiable on-chain. For the specifics of how this is implemented on the platform (e.g., visibility of voting records, display of voter DIDs), I invite @_magicsheep to provide further details.
If the community feels it is necessary to establish a clear rule on the balance between voter privacy and governance transparency, the appropriate path under the current governance framework would be to submit a meta-rule change proposal for community vote.
@Tetragrammaton @zz_tovarishch Thanks for the thoughtful responses.
Just to clarify my original question. I’m referring specifically to the forum voting phase, not the on-chain verification of voting weight or binding wallets to real-world identities.
I fully agree that the $CKB deposits backing the voting weight are verifiable on-chain. My question is more about the visibility of the voting profiles during the forum signaling stage, where a significant portion of the voting weight can sometimes come from hidden profiles.
The concern isn’t about restricting who can vote, but about whether some level of profile transparency or tenure signal could help the community better understand how sentiment is forming during the forum phase.
Appreciate the clarification on the current rules and the upcoming v1.1 system. If the community feels this is worth formalizing, a meta-rule discussion could indeed be the right path.
1 Like
Thanks for the clarification.
This issue looks quite different under the v1.1 framework. v1.1 removes the “30 likes within 7 days” threshold for passing the discussion stage. Instead, proposals enter a 21-day public Community Review period, after which the proposer decides whether to proceed to the voting stage.
7 days is often not enough time for a decentralized community to fully digest and discuss a proposal’s details, and 30 likes as a filtering signal might be unreliable (which is exactly the issue you’ve raised). v1.1 replaces this with a longer review period and requires the DAO Stewards to organize at least one public AMA during that period, giving the community a chance to directly question the proposer. This shifts the basis of community judgment from the quantity and source of likes toward substantive discussion and Q&A.
If you still feel that a tenure signal mechanism at the review stage would be valuable for community assessment, this is not covered by the current v1.1 rules, and initiating a meta-rule discussion would remain the appropriate path.
感谢您的澄清。
在 v1.1 框架下，这个问题不太一样。v1.1 取消了“7 天内获得 30 个赞”才能通过讨论阶段的门槛。取而代之的是，提案将进入为期 21 天的公开社区审查期，之后提案人决定是否进入投票阶段。
7 天的时间通常不足以让去中心化社区充分理解和讨论提案的细节，而 30 个赞作为筛选信号可能并不可靠（这正是您提出的问题）。v1.1 用更长的审查期取而代之，并要求 DAO 物业在此期间至少组织一次公开 AMA，让社区有机会直接向提案人提问。这使得社区判断的依据从点赞的数量和来源转向了实质性的讨论和问答。
如果您仍然认为在评审阶段引入任期信号机制对社区评估有价值，那么目前的 v1.1 规则并未涵盖这一点，发起元规则讨论仍然是合适的途径。
3 Likes