[Crab Sunset][Governance][Temp Check] Amendment to Proposal #41 – Execution Accessibility

[sonoferin2000]

@hackfisher

This is a Temp Check to assess whether Proposal #41 requires amendment to remain usable by non-technical stakeholders.

Proposal #41 introduced deterministic burn-address signaling and technical snapshot requirements that I cannot independently execute. As a result, I am procedurally blocked from submitting compliant proposals under the current framework.

This Temp Check asks whether the community supports amending Proposal #41 so that:

• Canonical YES / NO burn addresses are published by maintainers, or
• A verified, reproducible method is provided that does not require custom tooling.

No execution is requested at this stage.

[sonoferin2000]

“Should Proposal #41 be amended to remove technical barriers so non-technical stakeholders can use it?”

[hackfisher]

No, I do not support this Temp Check.

#41 is clear and executed, and this Temp check introduce additional ambiguity and implementation tool development overhead (due to lack of resource support and implementation). Please refer to the two existing proposals as template. #43 #44

[hackfisher]

Step 2: Voting Addresses (Burn Addresses)
Voting addresses are strictly defined as Burn Addresses (addresses with no private keys) to ensure neutrality. The funds sent to these addresses are effectively destroyed.

Generation Rule: Prefix(Zero Padding) + Proposal ID + Option
NO Address (Ends in 00): e.g., for Prop 1: 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000100
YES Address (Ends in 01): e.g., for Prop 1: 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000101

It is very clear rule, just follow the format, and replace with your sequencing proposal ID.

By the way, who is the “maintainer”, You? I can't understand you because many of your concepts are arbitrarily defined, and it seems only you understand them.

[sonoferin2000]

For the record: my question is not whether the rule text in Proposal #41 is clear. It is whether the framework is practically usable by non-technical stakeholders.

I have stated clearly that I cannot independently execute the burn-address generation and related technical steps. If the only remedy offered is “just follow the format,” then governance under #41 is effectively restricted to those with technical execution capability.

That is the accessibility issue this Temp Check was intended to surface. No further clarification from my side.

[hackfisher]

I have stated clearly that I cannot independently execute the burn-address generation and related technical steps.

As the proposer, it's your responsibility to find someone to assist you. I can't find a simpler or more accessible method, especially since there are already two examples for reference.

[sonoferin2000]

gatekeepers

[2xJDubs]

I agree with hackfisher here is that the team and Ambassadors are here to help with development of proposals and executions of votes. What was proposed can be easily done with help and this is why we need to discuss proposals first and then when ready help can be provided to execute what is needed.