[DAO:05f8cfe] Should We Set Term Limits for Grant Support Squad?

by 0x86edb92e217605dbecf606548e48daaf1b817da1 (MetaTrekkers)

Should We Set Term Limits for Grant Support Squad?

The Grant Support Squad was created to guarantee the effectiveness of the Grants Program, providing support for the grantees to have successful projects. But also for holding grantees accountable for their projects, and signaling to the DAO if a vesting contract needs to be revoked, as the basic terms and conditions to take care of the DAO Treasury.

Information about Grant Support Squad

Currently, the members of the Grant Support Squad do not have a defined term limit, and their removal can only occur through a governance vote by the DAO members. To address this, we propose implementing term limits and regularly scheduled elections to allow a larger pool of skilled individuals to take part in this well-compensated position.

Over time, working closely with each other can create blind spots, hindering objectivity in decision-making processes. Therefore, it is crucial to periodically rotate the members of the Decentraland Grant Squad to ensure that their work is carried out with the highest level of objectivity.

By rotating members, the Grant Support Squad can avoid the potential for organizational working relationships to influence its decision-making and ensure that each member brings a fresh perspective to the table. This approach will enable the team to benefit from the strengths of each member and ensure that their collective effort is solely focused on achieving the goals of the Decentraland community.

The absence of a set term for the Grant Support Squad in Decentraland can lead to several potential issues, including:

**1.    Lack of accountability**: Without a set term, the Grant Support Squad may not be held accountable for their actions, leading to potential abuses of power and a lack of transparency.

**2.    Lack of fresh perspectives**: Without new personnel in the Grant Support Squad, the same individuals may hold power for an extended period of time, leading to stagnation, and stifling innovation and new ideas.

**3.    Lack of trust**: The absence of term limits may lead to concerns about the impartiality of the Grant Support Squad, as members may become entrenched in their positions and less responsive to the needs of the community. This could lead to a lack of trust in the governance process and result in community members feeling disconnected from decision-making.

**4.    Reduced democratic participation**: The absence of term limits may discourage community members from participating in governance, as they may feel that their voices will not be heard or that their participation is not necessary.

*To address these potential issues, it is essential to implement term limits for the Grant Support Squad. Doing so will increase accountability, foster fresh perspectives, and promote transparency and impartiality in decision-making. Furthermore, setting term limits will encourage democratic participation and ensure that the governance process is accessible and inclusive for all community members.

An excellent example of a framework that implements term limits in Decentraland’s governance is the Accountability Committee selected by the Decentraland DAO Community. This committee is expected to serve for twelve (12) months, and the members can only be re-elected for one consecutive period. This proposal is available for review at

*It is important to note that implementing term limits does not mean that Grant Support Squad members should be forced to leave their positions after a specific time period. Instead, the positions must be open to the public to ensure fairness and accountability. In other words, term limits mean that after a set duration, members must reapply for their position and compete with other qualified candidates. This approach ensures that the Grant Support Squad is made up of skilled individuals who are committed to serving the Decentraland community’s best interests.

It is crucial to avoid a situation where the same individuals hold power indefinitely, as this can lead to complacency, a lack of accountability, and a disconnection from the community’s needs. Therefore, term limits are an essential element of effective governance in any democratic society. They promote diversity, fresh perspectives, and a healthy turnover of leadership, ensuring that the Grant Support Squad remains responsive, accountable, and effective over the long term.

(1) Yes, implement term limits for the Grant Support Squad so that members serve for a set duration and then must reapply for their position.

(2) No, do not implement term limits for the Grant Support Squad, allowing members to remain in their positions indefinitely.

(3) Abstain/Not
Applicable/Undecided: The voter chooses not to vote or is unable to vote for any reason.

  • Yes, implement term limits
  • No, do not implement term limits
  • Invalid question/options

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

1 Like

I completely agree with the proposal to implement term limits for the Grant Support Squad. By doing so, we can ensure that the members remain accountable, responsive, and effective in their roles, while also promoting diversity and fresh perspectives. The potential issues that can arise from not having term limits, including lack of accountability and trust, can be detrimental to the success of the Grants Program and the Decentraland community as a whole. It is essential to encourage democratic participation and ensure that the governance process is accessible and inclusive for all community members. Therefore, I fully support the implementation of term limits for the Grant Support Squad.

1 Like

Dear Community,

As a member of the Grant Support Squad I’d like to make some comments, as it might bring clarity of the procedure by which the team is selected.

  1. The Grant Support Squad does have a time limit, which is of 6 months, based on the grants framework the last time we applied for a grant.

  2. We are grantees from the DAO, not a committee, and as any other Core Unit who serves the community such as the Governance Squad or the Facilitation Squad, it is up for the DAO to vote the renewal of the grant. This means that the community is the one choosing if our team is worth being renewed, based on the work and impact we provide to the grants program.

  3. To hold our team accountable is one of the reasons why we are pushing for a Revocations Committee, as anyone from the community would be able to raise concerns about our grant (as any other), and it would be up to this autonomous committee to choose if the grant should or should not be revoked.

I thougth it was important to bring these points, as they might nurture the conversation.


Hi Grant Support Squad(GSS), Yes, GSS does have a time limit, but currently right now, this poll is focused on term limit. These are two different concepts.

Term limit refers to how long someone can hold a certain position. Unlike “time limit renewal/Grant renewal”, this allows other members of the DCL Community or outside of the community to apply as well for this position. This will allow DCL Citizens as a community to all have access to the same opportunity. DCL as a community can take this opportunity to hear from other applicants on how to optimize the GSS operations and make sure the DCL Community grantees are getting the appropriate service they need. I feel this position can be reapplied for if someone from GSS is the best applicant suited at the time, however it’s very important to give the DCL community this opportunity to apply and hear new ideas every term period.

As I mentioned above, “time limit renewal” and “term limit” are two different concepts. Time limit renewal just means you have completed your work for the past 6 months and can be renewed. Term limit reappointment means you are the best out of all the applicants that want to help serve and protect DCL DAO and the Grantees run efficiently. This is a very important department and position and we need to make sure it has the DCL community and DCL DAO best interest.

This is very complicated as I mentioned in the Revocations Committee proposal GSS submitted yesterday. GSS hand selected all the participants and they were not voted in. This alone, is a conflict of interest because GSS is also a Grantee. By GSS handpicking revocation committee, the chances of GSS ever being revoked is very slim, probably not possible, or even some could say not ethical and transparent for the DCL community. This means that there is a conflict of interest. GSS also is a Grantee just like you mentioned above.

To make sure the Revocation Committee is respected and valued by the DCL community, they should be voted in and the GSS should also have term limits. This will avoid any DCL community members speculating “conflict of interest” or “Quid pro Quo” This will prevent “many conspiracy theories and scandals ” and allow the GSS and the DAO to run at an efficient, transparent and ethical standpoint.

I thought it was important to bring these points, as they might nurture the conversation.

Just vote no in the next grant if you are not happy with the team?


Hi @HPrivakos , the conversation we are having here is not if we are happy with the team. The conversation is " allowing a fair and transparent platform for more people to apply for this position". As well as "allowing the community to hear fresh ideas and onboarding more talents into the DCL community " giving a fair playing ground to everyone to apply. Currently there is no application process to apply to these positions, because there is no term limit. Again, “Term limit” doesn’t mean they have to leave, it just means we can now openly accept applicants for these positions.

They can apply by asking for a grant to become GSS.

@HPrivakos So you want to have Two GSS squads and have the Dao pay twice, one for each department? Does that seem like an efficient way to use the Dao funds?

This is decentralized. Every Squad has to get approved every 6 months. Also others can try to go for the Squad positions. Chris MT, put your team together and vote them in for the next 6 months. You have that power. GSS has responsibilities which was granted by the initial creation of the GSS. Whatever Squad team approved gets that position.

Should We Set Term Limits for Grant Support Squad?

This proposal is now in status: FINISHED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes, implement term limits 64% 5,355,269 VP (85 votes)
  • No, do not implement term limits 0% 0 VP (5 votes)
  • Invalid question/options 36% 3,039,565 VP (79 votes)

Should We Set Term Limits for Grant Support Squad?

This proposal has been PASSED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)

Term limits: If someone is doing a good job and the community wants to keep them in their position there should be no limit to how long they can serve. The current team is doing a good job, and if they are to stop serving, it should be because they have moved on to better pastures, or because the community feels that someone else can do a better job, not because their time is up.

Squad vs Committee: I have so many questions… Perhaps the GSS should be a committee? We will need a GSS to look after the treasury for the duration of the vesting contract. What happens if/when the GSS members can no longer do their job? Would they just not apply for another grant and then there’s no more squad? Another different squad would have to apply for the grant? Would we have to vote on those members as a collective or can we vote for the GSS members individually like we are trying to do with the revocations committee? What if two squads apply when the 6 month period is up… and another squad wins the bid? Will the first squad transfer knowledge of all the processes and tools being used or will the new squad have to recreate them?

If the GSS grant doesn’t pass (for whatever crazy reason as we have seen lately) we would just be left without a GSS… maybe we should have a committee that is permanent and members that may come or go, but the GSS will always be there. I would vote for keeping the team we have now and giving them committee status… @yararasita do you think the GSS should be a committee?

I think you make a great point and I hope @yararasita or someone from the GSS will comment.

It doesn’t make sense that a group with so much power should be voted in as a block. It centralizes a very important element of the DAO process in a way that doesn’t feel in the spirit of a DAO.

For example, they hired someone to join the “squad” who prior to being hired had not been in the DAO discord, so couldn’t have been very involved in the community.


I believe the squad made their choice well and with the best interest of the community, but I agree we still need clarification on this @palewin @Fehz @Zino @yararasita could you guys give us your thoughts? Thank you.

Hi Friends! So sorry @CheddarQueso I missed your last message, but I am thankful @Jar0d brought me here to provide context regarding this matter.

A simple very non exciting answer about if the Grant Support Squad should or should not be a Committee is that I am not sure. To answer this question, first we need to define what a Committee and what a Squad is, and as of today, we do not have a clear definition. What I can provide are some characteristics, based on my experience: Committees have different times of permanence, their members are selected by the community, they have ongoing tasks instead of a roadmap, and their initiatives are paid from the DAO treasury directly. In the case of Squads, they serve the community directly, are based on grant renewals and as any other grant, the members of their teams are defined on their own, and they define a roadmap every time they have a renewal, so the community can vote if they think it is a good use of the DAO treasury or not.

The Grant Support Squad was created as a need for the grants program. Yemel asked me if I’d be interested in applying my previous knowledge managing grants programs to this one, he introduced me to Pablo and Zino, and we started drafting our first proposal. I think that applying for a grant was a good way to test the impact of this team, and to be able to adjust the roadmap periodically, based on the community’s needs. And I must say I am really honored and proud of what our team has built so far in terms of designing processes to support the grantees. We are actively listening, implementing changes, and testing constantly new initiatives that add value for the grantees for them to have a better experience in the program.

Regarding the duration of the GSS, I am not sure if there needs to be a GSS for the whole duration of the vesting contract, as maybe we decide that there is no need for a grants program in the future. I would rather say that as long as we need a grants program, it is healthy for the program to have a team that can support them, so we can make sure that these projects the DAO is investing in, can make the most out of it.

About transferring knowledge, we are right now working on our renewal, and one of the things we would like to implement in this next term is the documentation of our internal processes, so not only our community, but members of other DAOs can have access to them. We could not have done this earlier as the first grant we had focused on understanding the program, started testing some initiatives and setting our goals, and the second one was to implement initiatives or change the existing ones based on those learnings. Luckily, we feel that now we are at a stage where we can start documenting, and share that experience and processes with others.

Also to answer @Jar0d, we needed to build capacity with someone that had experience with project management, and as we were about to implement our #TestingTuesdays, and after making an open call to the community and colleagues, Fifi turned out to be the best fit for this position from all the candidates. As any other grant, we are the ones creating our team based on the needs of the 6 month roadmap, so this is why this hiring was done internally.

Hope this helps understand the context better.


I’m in favor of having a Grant Support Squad, but I think the point is that we need set term limits for their members on things the squad can do and can’t do. It’s very important that the GSS doesn’t lose its credibility and I think the best way to do that is through accountability.

I think it’s also very important that the squad makes it clear in every meeting that they aren’t a squad in power and are most importantly here to support grantees.

I also think that whenever a Squad recommends anything that is crucial to a grant like revoking it that they should do this through a poll and only post a link under the grant to the poll. That way we can have community decisions about it and everything remains decentralized as it should.

From my personal experience since I was given only 2 options by Zino I was under the illusion that whatever the squad was going to recommend under my proposal that it would go through on to next step. after reading in the DAO from @HPrivakos that I should never had to agree to begin with I started to realize that this was an option.

So these set of rules would apply for any squad that is going to setup a team to support grantees.

1 Like

I agree 100%! Well said!:+1:t4: @InJesterr

Thank you @yararasita for giving us your thoughts. I am happy to see that you will be sharing your process and I’m excited to learn from it. Please ping me when you publish your documentation. It’s essential that we have a GSS to support our grantees and oversee their bridge to the community. I believe a framework is needed to make it permanent as long as the grants program is active.