📢 Fiber Desktop Proposal Voting Live Proposal Summary: A cross-platform desktop app (macOS / Windows / Linux) wrapping the official Fiber Network Node (fnn) with a consumer-grade UX, no VPS or CLI required. 💰 Budget: $6,000 (settled in CKB equivalent at time of issuance) ⏰ Voting closes: 7 days 📊 Quorum: 15,000,000 CKB (3x budget) ✅ Approval threshold: 51% Vote here👉 dao.ckb.community/thread/vot… Full proposal👉 talk.nervos.org/t/10317 All community members with Nervos DAO deposits are eligible to participate. Whether you support or oppose, voting is the way to have your preference counted in the final outcome.

CKB Has No Plan — But We Do. Our previous posts about roadmaps generated some controversy. We’re grateful to have your attention. Because this distinction matters. CKB doesn’t have a roadmap because it is public infrastructure, not a product operated by a company. The goal of any serious blockchain is not endless reinvention. It is to become a stable, secure, and predictable infrastructure that others can build on for decades. That said, CKBA absolutely has plans. CKBA exists to coordinate stakeholders and grow the CKB ecosystem across the areas that matter most. That means organized work to attract builders, identify use cases, improve developer onboarding, fund ecosystem initiatives, pursue partnerships, clearly communicate CKB’s value, and actively engage the teams, companies, and communities that can drive real usage on the network. Having reorganized and unified several teams under a single structure puts us in a stronger position than ever to execute on these goals. A ton of work is already underway, especially on the Fiber front: improving the stack and documentation, advancing Lightning interoperability and liquidity management, and identifying and removing blockers for adoption. Work is also ongoing on the design and implementation of the DAO's on-chain treasury and voting mechanisms. And while there are many other initiatives in the pipeline that we’ll share when the time is right, there’s one that demands immediate attention 👇 Three months ago, Google Quantum AI published a bombshell paper showing that quantum attacks against secp256k1—the elliptic curve behind the signatures used by most blockchains—may require far fewer resources than previously estimated. In simple terms, the paper made the quantum threat to cryptocurrencies harder to ignore. The industry conversation that followed was, as expected, hard to miss — and yet it missed CKB. No mention in the paper, no mention in the con im versations on X and various forums, no mention anywhere. To put it bluntly, this is a huge communication failure on our part. CKB is the only cryptographically agile blockchain in existence, and therefore one of the few that’s already quantum ready. It’s the only chain where devs can bring new post-quantum signature schemes permissionlessly. No need for soft or hard forks. No need to pick a single PQ scheme and bake it in as a precompile. CKB is the only chain that can switch between different crypto primitives without disrupting operations or requiring significant infrastructure redesign. It’s the true embodiment of crypto-agility — yet barely anyone was aware of it. So, our first course of action on the communication front is to remedy that. We’ll run a comprehensive marketing campaign that’ll put CKB at the forefront of the Quantum x Blockchain discussion and position it as one of the few projects with a future-proof solution. And we want all of you involved. If you care about CKB and want to help push this forward, reach out. If you’re a developer, researcher, writer, designer, translator, community organizer, content creator, or just someone willing to help amplify the message, we want to hear from you. This campaign should not be about what CKBA has to say. It should be about making CKB impossible to ignore. We’ll be opening channels for community participation soon. In the meantime, reply here, DM us, or join the discussion on Nervos Talk.

Dan Boneh suggests NIST's PQ DSA standards came out too soon. his take: if NIST had waited a couple years, ML-DSA signature sizes could be 1/3 of what they are today. It is a critical trade-off on size and timing for post-quantum crypto deployment. That's why many systems don't realize that they will have to re-architect more than they think to handle larger key sizes. But waiting is also a gamble, and if you're doing anything in government, you can't wait. Hats off to the cryptographers/product folks having to handle this!