Gonka Community Fund

Proposal простыми словами

О чем это

Distribute restitution for Kimi operators across epochs 265-276. Epochs 265-266: external attack causing CPoC degradation and nonce exclusion. Epochs 267-276: ComputeGroupCap systematic underpayment due to attack-induced N-1 weight collapse. Total: 946,509.93 GNK to 53 addresses.

Запрос

Governance text asks for 946,509.93 GNK: Total: 946,509.93 GNK to 53 addresses.

Ответственный

Protocol proposer gonka1nvcwl2c7jxj2h47c56y8dmcmf0tynt5dplzngy; accountable delivery owner not explicitly provided.

Почему это важно

Not provided as a dedicated network-level value field. Source summary: Distribute restitution for Kimi operators across epochs 265-276. Epochs 265-266: external attack causing CPoC degradation and nonce exclusion. Epochs 267-276: ComputeGroupCap systematic underpayment due to attack-induced N-1 weight collapse. Total: 946,509.93 GNK to 53 addresses.

Проблема

Not provided as a dedicated problem/bottleneck field. Source summary: Distribute restitution for Kimi operators across epochs 265-276. Epochs 265-266: external attack causing CPoC degradation and nonce exclusion. Epochs 267-276: ComputeGroupCap systematic underpayment due to attack-induced N-1 weight collapse. Total: 946,509.93 GNK to 53 addresses.

Что должно быть сделано

Unstructured governance deliverable

Нужны правкиAI-черновик

Framework score v2

Простое ревью

This is a restitution payout proposal for Kimi operators affected in epochs 265–276, asking to distribute about 946,509.93 GNK. The case identifies a plausible network fairness issue, but the public review record has material gaps: the payout formula is not clearly summarized, recipient eligibility is not fully auditable from the supplied context, and the executable message summary shows 52 recipient-like addresses while the prose says 53 addresses.

Доказательства

средние

Команда

провал

Блокеры

Почему такое мнение

The restitution purpose is plausible, but recipient correctness and formula evidence are not clear enough for a large payout.
The executable message summary appears inconsistent with the prose recipient count.
No accountable owner or dispute path is provided for handling payout errors.

Пять публичных проверок

2/4

Ценность для сети

Restoring underpaid operators after an attack can support network trust, but the network-level value is asserted rather than fully evidenced here.

1/4

Ясность плана

The epochs, total amount, and restitution purpose are clear, but recipient verification, acceptance criteria, and formula details are not clear in the supplied summary.

1/4

Доверие к команде

Only a proposer address is provided, with no named accountable owner for explaining or correcting the payout.

1/4

Дисциплина финансирования

The total payout amount is stated, but the formula and per-recipient audit basis are not sufficiently visible and the address count appears inconsistent.

1/4

Риски и stewardship

The executable transfer summary does not clearly match the prose recipient count, and dispute handling or conflict review is not provided.

Оценка команды

Team confidence is low because accountability for this exact restitution calculation and execution is not explicit.

Ответственный

вопрос

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

Релевантные доказательства

неясно

The supplied context does not show prior evidence that this proposer has executed similar restitution audits.

Ресурсы и capacity

неясно

No time, resources, reviewer process, or operational capacity is described for this payout review.

Accountability path

провал

No appeal, correction, contact, or post-execution reconciliation path is provided.

Условия

Publish a canonical recipient table with all addresses, per-address amounts, eligibility reason, affected epochs, and total checksum.
Resolve the mismatch between the prose claim of 53 addresses and the executable message summary showing 52 recipient-like addresses.
Publish or summarize the exact payout formula, input data sources, assumptions, rounding rules, and reconciliation to 946,509.93 GNK.

Блокирующие проблемы

Нет ответственного owner: The proposal identifies a proposer address but not an accountable restitution owner.
Нет бюджетной или tranche-логики: For this payout profile, the missing piece is an auditable payout formula and per-recipient amount basis.
Ключевые утверждения не подтверждены: The attack, underpayment, eligibility, and amount claims are not sufficiently verifiable from the supplied review summary.

Kimi Restitution (epochs 265-276)

О чем это

Простое ревью

Источники