[DAO:0735fa7] Limiting Grants budget per Proposal

by 0x598f8af1565003ae7456dac280a18ee826df7a2c (pablo)

Linked Pre-Proposal

Grants: Reasonable anti-drain measures


Implementing limits on grants per proposal to prevent excessive fund utilization and promote wider participation.


Propose a cap on the funding amount for each proposal, set at 20% of the quarterly budget allocated to the respective category.
Advocate against the freezing of grants to ensure continuous project advancement.


Given the current bear market conditions, there is a notable decline in the DAO’s available funds.

Concerns are mounting regarding the depletion of the DAO’s financial resources.

Implementing a complete freeze on grants would impede ongoing developmental strides.

Nonetheless, a straightforward remedy presents itself with a host of additional advantages.

Enabling a more inclusive approach, with increased participation, expanded opportunities, and heightened contributions. Applicants can seek smaller, short-term grants, thereby reducing the need to liquidate substantial MANA holdings. For instance, requesting funds for a two-month period rather than committing all MANA resources for six or twelve months. Furthermore, project beneficiaries can apply for multiple grants over time to sustain their initiatives.


Set a ceiling for each proposal, equivalent to 20% of the quarterly budget allocated to the specific category.
Discourage the freezing of grants to ensure a continuous flow of project support.


In conclusion, this proposal addresses a critical concern in the current decentralized landscape, where the DAO’s financial stability is threatened by the ongoing bear market. The motivation behind this proposal stems from the need to safeguard the DAO’s funds while also promoting a more inclusive and dynamic ecosystem. By limiting grants per proposal to 20% of the category’s quarterly budget and rejecting the idea of freezing grants, we not only prevent undue drain on resources but also foster a more agile and resilient support system for projects.

The intended impact of this solution is multifaceted. It not only ensures the sustainability of the DAO’s financial health but also encourages a broader range of participants to engage with their innovative ideas. Through this approach, we aim to strike a balance between responsible resource management and providing the necessary impetus for ongoing project development.
In essence, this proposal encapsulates a proactive response to the challenges posed by market fluctuations while nurturing an environment of continuous growth and collaboration within the decentralized realm. It is our conviction that by embracing these limitations and focusing on sustainable progress, the DAO can chart a path towards enduring success and impactful contributions.

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

The title is misleading, since it suggests a limitation on number of grants (of which I would have voted against). But the abstract suggests a limitation on the funded amount of each grant (of which I am in favor of).

I would rather see large proposals funded in smaller chunks, rather than eating up such a large portion of the quarterly budgets. This would allow greater diversity of proposals from more grantees.


You are right, we will take care of the title in the next governance proposal.

I’ve removed the draft proposal for the freezing of grants in support of this proposal as a way forward after receiving community feedback.

1 Like

Am I understanding correctly that this proposal aims to ensure that no grantee can receive more than 20% of the allocated budget?

IE: I can’t apply for 45% of the funds in the in-world content category, as an example?

1 Like

It should be cut 80%

Voted NO

1 Like

That is my understanding.

I don’t think it’s a bad idea, but i think it lacks some nuance

1 Like

Exactly, a grantee can request 20% of the total budget now, and other 20% on the next quarter; but not 40% for next 6 months, or 80% for the next 12 months for example.

a 20% doesn’t need to be definitive, the numbers can be discussed and refined on next governance proposal if this one passes.

While this proposal sounds great and noble, I think there may be some potential issues with what you are proposing. You say that this approach is “inclusive” yet I could easily see this going the other way of existing grants just taking up funds in smaller amounts to “upgrade” some features of existing projects in DCL. (If we want to just start paying projects to upgrade to sdk7 lets get a separate budget going, since it seems like more and more proposals are talking about “upgrading” existing ideas and projects from sdk6… with a couple new features of course)

I think your proposal potentially stifles competition within DCL and limits potential NEW projects that could not take DCL to the next level while being restricted to the current rules/processes/hoops of the DAO. I also believe that building the things that DCL needs to get to the next level will take some Larger projects to set the bar and up creativity as a whole within the community and platform. With the current system it is extremely hard for anyone, let alone outsiders or new potential grantees. The communication process and UI of the DAO’s proposal website need updating badly. There are many things that are confusing and I see this as a huge barrier to entry. The combination of these factors leads to a handful of existing projects getting funds while keeping large competition out (through fund % caps) and small competition out (by process).

I think shortening some grants or encouraging smaller windows for grants to be delivered will likely cause more people to overpromise and underdeliver like government politicians who are willing to say whatever it takes to get elected (funds) and in power.

How does any of this bring in QUALITY experiences to Decentraland and make it easier for the best ideas and execution to happen? (We seem to be adding more criteria, hoops, and processes while not actually addressing the real issues. (how is that “inclusive?”) Many of these ideas seem to be Reactionary when the ideas should be well thought out and complete.

Also, more grants and potential grants means more drain on the DAOs (time) resources if we had say, 3x-5x as many grants going around. What about all of the “smaller” grants that just disappear or dont perform? (There will most likely be a lower success rate of these “smaller” projects, just like “small” businesses. (except many of the people asking for grants are anonymous) Would we need to add more people to the payroll for the DAO to support these processes? How much will that cost per year?

We are quickly heading the way of DAO bureaucracy to the point where everything you are wanting to “accomplish” cannot be done in a way that is viable. It sounds like more web 3 WAGMI speak to me with your buzzwords of inclusive and diversity. (toxic positivity)

This proposal needs careful reconsideration. We must think about the diverse types of grantees we have. For some, like Core Units, a full grant is not a luxury but a necessity for ongoing operations. They need the assurance of sustained funding across multiple quarters, as their work heavily relies on it. Similarly, projects that have salary obligations need to have certainty in their funding.

The stress of having to participate in multiple voting sessions throughout the year can be quite overwhelming for grantees, especially in such toxic environment.

% cap could stifle projects requiring a larger initial investment, discourage ambitious and potentially groundbreaking projects from applying, and increase the administrative burden for both the grantees and the DAO.

I strongly recommend that we have more in-depth discussions on this topic before moving forward.

1 Like

A large, and growing, segment of the community do not believe grants should be paying anyones salary.

1 Like

Voting NO because @pablo has a voting record 90% in line with RobL and is the cause of this. He is creating the problem only to look like the hero here.

1 Like

Hi beautiful being, how are you? I had to silence you and I didn’t see your comments, a friend just showed me your comment.

Although I know answering you is so unproductive for the thread and for other people, I apologise to others if this conversation spend some of your valuable time.

Regarding RobL, funny true fact is that I never talked with him in my life.
I like to support content creation, you can read my “call for delegates” here Open Call for Delegates / Apply now! - #10 by pablo
So maybe thats the only reason if I have coincidence with robL.
I will keep voting in favour of creators, aligned with robL or not, I don’t care.

And please stop your personal attacks, I don’t care what you vote, unlike you, I learned to respect others opinions far time ago. I think you have never contribute anything positive to this community, it seems your hobby is to make attacks and discuss with people in internet. So congrats, you have made me spend some time I could have been building and contributing. Enjoy your day.

This is such an incredibly ironic and toxic thing for you to write. Either silence him and don’t engage or accept that you are just as shitty as the person you are trying to be dismissive of.

Whatever you are trying to accomplish is lost in your petty execution.

1 Like

But yet, you are limiting grants budgets? This sounds hypocritical. You created the problem with supporting the DAO Drainers in name of Content Creation and Marketing. Now you are the hero trying to fix it? I am just not understanding this inconsistency.

I believe there are content creators that have proven themselves to be worthy of higher funding amounts. However, this proposal doesn’t solve the main issue at play here.

I wasn’t sure until I saw this.

What do you mean? What are you trying to contribute to the specs of the proposal?

FYI: 59%, now that I have looked, not only you are making direct acusation, your are dropping lies.

Anyway I dont care if it’s 0, 50 or 99, like I said, I can vote with my own opinion.