Gonka Community Fund
governance: проваленОтклонить

test proposal - 测试方案

test proposal - 测试方案

Мнение по proposal

AI-черновик

Что говорит ревью

I would not allocate Community Fund or governance-controlled network capital to this proposal as written. The proposal text is only “test proposal - 测试方案,” while the executable message would execute a CosmWasm contract call with 1000000000000 of an unmapped IBC denomination and a recipient-like address. There is no stated network problem, outcome, safety analysis, accountable owner, or verification path.

  • The proposal has no stated network-level outcome.
  • The executable message moves funds without enough explanation or safety review.
  • There is no accountable owner, delivery proof, or accountability path.
Открыть публичное ревью

Запрос

0 UNKNOWN

Ответственный

Protocol proposer gonka1hwyjwehgp6e5pgpg0ye4a7unwu5q9xzljpuwr5; accountable delivery owner not explicitly provided.

Подано

3 июн. 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

test proposal - 测试方案

Запрос

0 UNKNOWN

Ответственный

Protocol proposer gonka1hwyjwehgp6e5pgpg0ye4a7unwu5q9xzljpuwr5; accountable delivery owner not explicitly provided.

Почему это важно

Not provided as a dedicated network-level value field. Source summary: test proposal - 测试方案

Проблема

Not provided as a dedicated problem/bottleneck field. Source summary: test proposal - 测试方案

Что должно быть сделано

  • Unstructured governance deliverable
Детали оценкиShow
ОтклонитьAI-черновик

Framework score v2

Простое ревью

I would not allocate Community Fund or governance-controlled network capital to this proposal as written. The proposal text is only “test proposal - 测试方案,” while the executable message would execute a CosmWasm contract call with 1000000000000 of an unmapped IBC denomination and a recipient-like address. There is no stated network problem, outcome, safety analysis, accountable owner, or verification path.

Доказательства

высокие

Команда

провал

Блокеры

4

Почему такое мнение

  • The proposal has no stated network-level outcome.
  • The executable message moves funds without enough explanation or safety review.
  • There is no accountable owner, delivery proof, or accountability path.

Пять публичных проверок

0/4

Ценность для сети

The proposal states no concrete Gonka network problem, opportunity, beneficiary, or timing rationale.

0/4

Ясность плана

The only prose is a test title/body, with no deliverables, acceptance criteria, metrics, or exclusions.

0/4

Доверие к команде

Only a proposer address is visible, and no accountable owner or relevant delivery proof is provided.

0/4

Дисциплина финансирования

The executable includes coin movement, but the denomination, recipient purpose, budget logic, and tranche controls are not explained.

0/4

Риски и stewardship

The proposal gives no contract safety review, blast-radius analysis, rollback plan, monitoring plan, or conflict disclosure.

Оценка команды

Team confidence is not established for this exact executable action.

Ответственный

провал

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

Релевантные доказательства

провал

No evidence of similar protocol execution or stewardship is included.

Ресурсы и capacity

неясно

The proposal gives no staffing, operational capacity, or commitment information.

Accountability path

провал

There is no reporting, contact, maintenance, escalation, or post-execution accountability path.

Условия

  • Replace the test text with a concrete problem statement, intended protocol outcome, and why this change is necessary now.
  • Provide the full executable message details, including target contract, call payload, recipient, funds, and expected state changes.
  • Map the IBC denomination to a reviewable asset and explain the amount, recipient rationale, and whether this is a transfer, contract funding, or other action.

Блокирующие проблемы

  • Нет ответственного owner: The proposal identifies only a proposer address and no accountable delivery owner.
  • Нет измеримого результата: No baseline, target, metric, or verification method is provided.
  • Нет бюджетной или tranche-логики: The executable coin movement has no stated purpose, valuation, recipient rationale, or controls.
Источники и доказательстваShow
No specific evidence materials were cited by the public review.