Gonka Community Fund

Proposal простыми словами

О чем это

Distribute compensation proportional to epoch 158 lost preserved weights. Implemented as one MsgBatchTransferWithVesting.

Запрос

Governance proposal includes executable GNK transfer messages totaling approximately 30,538.149 GNK.

Ответственный

Protocol proposer gonka100s7x2t0npruu9ta02306qfmaened3vg3a9dn6; accountable delivery owner not explicitly provided.

Почему это важно

Not provided as a dedicated network-level value field. Source summary: Distribute compensation proportional to epoch 158 lost preserved weights. Implemented as one MsgBatchTransferWithVesting.

Проблема

Not provided as a dedicated problem/bottleneck field. Source summary: Distribute compensation proportional to epoch 158 lost preserved weights. Implemented as one MsgBatchTransferWithVesting.

Что должно быть сделано

Unstructured governance deliverable

Нужны правкиAI-черновик

Framework score v2

Простое ревью

This is a payout/restitution proposal to distribute about 30,538.149 GNK for epoch 158 lost preserved weights using executable vesting and community-pool-spend messages. The restitution purpose is plausibly network-relevant and the formula is partially documented, but the review evidence does not include an auditable recipient-by-recipient table, independent validation of the lost-weight calculation, a dispute/appeal process, or a clearly named accountable owner beyond the proposer address. The proposal should be revised or supported only after recipient correctness, formula inputs, executable-message matching, and conflict/dispute handling are made auditable.

Доказательства

средние

Команда

провал

Блокеры

Почему такое мнение

Plausible network-level restitution purpose, but recipient correctness is not auditable from the extracted evidence.
Formula is partially documented, yet minimum-payout and author-payment adjustments require explicit governance justification.
Executable payout moves a material amount to many addresses, so message/prose matching and dispute handling should be stronger before allocation.

Пять публичных проверок

2/4

Ценность для сети

Restoring compensation for lost epoch 158 preserved weights plausibly supports network fairness and operator trust, but the proposal text provides only a brief claim and no dedicated problem statement, incident analysis, or why-now rationale beyond the governance context.

2/4

Ясность плана

The payout method is partially clear: a per-weight conversion rate, lost-weight comparison, rounding, minimum payout handling, and executable messages are described. However, the evidence corpus does not include the full recipient list, per-recipient amounts, acceptance checks, exclusions, or a verification path that lets reviewers reproduce recipient correctness.

1/4

Доверие к команде

The proposer address is visible, but there is no named accountable owner, no evidence of prior similar restitution execution, no stated capacity, and no reporting/escalation path for disputes or corrections. The governance vote outcome is not delivery proof.

2/4

Дисциплина финансирования

There is a payout formula and total amount, but funding discipline is weakened by missing recipient-level audit data in the extracted evidence, an added fixed 500 GNK author payment, and minimum-payout adjustments that change strict proportionality. These may be acceptable only if explicitly justified and auditable.

1/4

Риски и stewardship

Executable payout risk is real because funds move to 138 recipient-like addresses, but the proposal does not show dispute handling, appeals, exclusions, independent verification, or mitigation if addresses/amounts are wrong. Conflicts are also not separately disclosed in the governance text, despite the formula including a fixed author payment.

Оценка команды

Team confidence is low for this exact payout because responsibility is only traceable to a proposer address and not to a named owner with a documented review, correction, or dispute process.

Ответственный

вопрос

A proposer address exists, but no named accountable person/entity is provided.

Релевантные доказательства

неясно

The corpus does not provide evidence that the proposer has previously executed similar restitution or audited payout proposals.

Ресурсы и capacity

неясно

No time, review resources, or validation capacity are disclosed. For a one-time payout this may be less important than correctness, but it remains unproven.

Accountability path

провал

No reporting, appeal, correction, or escalation path is described for recipients who were omitted or incorrectly paid.

Условия

Publish a recipient-level table with address, historical preserved weight, current/reset preserved weight, lost preserved weight, formula output, rounding/minimum-payout adjustment, final amount, and whether any author/admin payment is included.
Provide reproducible source data or snapshots for block 2,443,438 and the epoch 158 current-state comparison, plus a checksum or script so reviewers can verify totals.
Show that executable messages exactly match the published recipient table, including total amount, denomination, vesting terms, and community-pool-spend amount.

Блокирующие проблемы

Ключевые утверждения не подтверждены: The core claim depends on historical preserved weights, current epoch data, recipient eligibility, and per-recipient amounts, but the extracted evidence only provides a formula summary and executable-message summary, not a reproducible recipient-level audit.
Нет ответственного owner: There is a proposer address, but no named owner responsible for validation, disputes, or remediation.
Существенный конфликт или compliance risk: The formula includes a fixed 500 GNK payment to the proposal author. This is disclosed in the metadata, so it is not treated as hidden, but it should be justified and separated from restitution logic.

Epoch 158 compensation payout from gov module (batch vesting)

О чем это

Простое ревью

Источники