Gonka Community Fund
governance: проваленНужны правки

Upgrade Proposal: v0.2.13

Upgrade Proposal: v0.2.13

Мнение по proposal

AI-черновик

Что говорит ревью

This is a protocol software-upgrade proposal for v0.2.13 with no direct GNK transfer ask, but the supplied review materials do not provide enough safety, ownership, rollback, or verification detail to justify using shared governance authority as-is.

  • The upgrade may address real protocol issues, but the proposal does not evidence measurable outcomes or safety controls.
  • No direct treasury spend is requested, yet shared governance authority still requires strong executable-safety evidence.
  • Accountability is unclear because the materials provide a proposer address but not an owner, maintainer, or escalation path.
Открыть публичное ревью

Запрос

0 GNK

Ответственный

Protocol proposer gonka18lluv53n4h9z34qu20vxcvypgdkhsg6nn2cl2d; accountable delivery owner not explicitly provided.

Подано

15 мая 2026 г.

Что думает коммьюнити

AI opinion - стартовая позиция. Ответы ниже помогают другим понять согласие, возражения и готовность голосовать.

Согласен

0

Согласен с условиями

0

Не согласен

0

Нужно больше данных

0

Ваше мнение

Governance голосование закрыто

Protocol result/status: провален. Здесь еще можно оставить публичный комментарий, но голосование уже не активно.

Отношение к AI opinion
Если голосовать сейчас
Посмотреть governance result

Все ответы

Ответов пока нет. Можно быть первым.

Proposal простыми словами

О чем это

Upgrade Proposal: v0.2.13

Запрос

0 GNK

Ответственный

Protocol proposer gonka18lluv53n4h9z34qu20vxcvypgdkhsg6nn2cl2d; accountable delivery owner not explicitly provided.

Почему это важно

Not provided as a dedicated network-level value field. Source summary: Upgrade Proposal: v0.2.13

Проблема

Not provided as a dedicated problem/bottleneck field. Source summary: Upgrade Proposal: v0.2.13

Что должно быть сделано

  • Unstructured governance deliverable
Детали оценкиShow
Нужны правкиAI-черновик

Framework score v2

Простое ревью

This is a protocol software-upgrade proposal for v0.2.13 with no direct GNK transfer ask, but the supplied review materials do not provide enough safety, ownership, rollback, or verification detail to justify using shared governance authority as-is.

Доказательства

низкие

Команда

провал

Блокеры

4

Почему такое мнение

  • The upgrade may address real protocol issues, but the proposal does not evidence measurable outcomes or safety controls.
  • No direct treasury spend is requested, yet shared governance authority still requires strong executable-safety evidence.
  • Accountability is unclear because the materials provide a proposer address but not an owner, maintainer, or escalation path.

Пять публичных проверок

2/4

Ценность для сети

The README claims fixes to reward accounting, escrow params, authz grants, parsing, reactivation, gRPC defaults, and storage growth, but it does not show measured network impact.

2/4

Ясность плана

The release scope is listed at a high level, but acceptance criteria, operator steps, success metrics, and exclusions are not clear in the imported proposal.

1/4

Доверие к команде

The proposer address is known, but no named accountable delivery owner or delivery evidence for this exact upgrade is provided.

3/4

Дисциплина финансирования

No direct GNK transfer is detected, so the main resource cost is governance and operator execution risk rather than treasury spend.

1/4

Риски и stewardship

The proposal includes an executable software upgrade, but rollback, monitoring, full message details, binary verification, and post-upgrade responsibility are not sufficiently evidenced.

Оценка команды

Team confidence is weak because accountability for delivery and maintenance is not explicit.

Ответственный

вопрос

A proposer address is present, but no named accountable owner or entity is specified.

Релевантные доказательства

неясно

The supplied materials do not show proof that this proposer delivered comparable upgrades safely.

Ресурсы и capacity

неясно

The proposal does not state who will coordinate validators, testing, monitoring, or emergency response.

Accountability path

провал

No reporting, escalation, maintenance, or post-upgrade support path is provided.

Условия

  • Name the accountable upgrade owner and provide a public contact and escalation path.
  • Publish the full executable MsgSoftwareUpgrade fields and show they match the README release description.
  • Provide operator instructions, expected halt or upgrade height behavior, and validator coordination requirements.

Блокирующие проблемы

  • Нет ответственного owner: The proposal identifies only a governance proposer address, not an accountable upgrade owner.
  • Нет измеримого результата: The proposal does not define baseline, target, or measurement method for upgrade success.
  • Ключевые утверждения не подтверждены: The claimed fixes and downloadable release assets are not verified by extractable review evidence.
Источники и доказательстваShow

governance 52

DEFEATED

https://gonkascan.com/network/proposals/52
No specific evidence materials were cited by the public review.