While I feel the sentiment of voting yes with also limiting it to only platform upgrades, This will not solve the problem of people getting ridiculous grants. It actually would close the door to some grants who are honest and trying to do things right.
Anyone who is voting yes for their friends and is not looking at their prior credibility objectively or looking at the substance of the grants itself, is the problem here. Because these people in real life would never lend any of their own money to them, they dont care because it isnât their direct money. What those people need to realize is that we all lose if the DAO gets drained. Yeah you may think you are walking away with $100k of funds, but realistically, you could walk away with millions if this platform is successful.
Addressing some problems:
If the problem is the dao draining funds, then we need some kind of credibility system in place to hold everyone in check about how they are voting and what they are proposing.
Stop supporting bad actors. Donât attend their events. Donât tweet for them.
Let them bring the outside value that they are promising. Most of these grants are NOT for entertainment of the current DCL citizens, they should be targeting audiences outside of Decentraland.
Support the events that bring real value to Decentraland. If you are only attending to support a grantee and you feel like it is a chore, then clearly you are wasting your time. You should want to attend that event, because that event is soo good on its own. Thatâs a good way to measure the value.
I repeat, if you are only attending because someone asked you, then it is time to start being objective. If that event is not attractive enough on its own to attract you (someone who is active in DCL), then why would it attract an outsider? Donât make an outsider come to something that you feel is a chore. That is exactly why they are not coming back.
If the problem is Mana price going down, then we dont need to freeze, we need to be more selective on the grants we choose while keeping that in mind.
If the problem is the lack of users, maybe we should focus on more final solutions than temporary marketing solutions or events.
Platform Upgrades are needed.
Content that will bring returning users
Scenes that will provide endless service industry based jobs
Who gets to decide which grants are âridiculousâ though? Thatâs what the voting system is supposed to be filtering out. There is an inherent inequity in the voting system that favors investors over builders, which definitely contributes to a certain amount of corruption. If a powerful few can nearly get someone de-personed from the entire platform, of course they can find ways to line the pockets of themselves and their friends. Has anyone come up with a decent strategy for addressing that yet?
Another thing to take into consideration is a lot of these decisions are being made by people who have no idea how to value software development or services. If a developer wants $100k to extend the platform, how do you determine if what theyâre offering is actually worth $100 or $1 million? There are so many factors at play and one of them is for your understanding of whatâs being offered to match what the other person thinks theyâre offering.
None of this is going to be solved by freezing grants, but if we want to say itâs necessary because the price of MANA is too lowâŚwhat if we freeze grants and the price keeps going down? Just hope everyone keeps building out of the goodness of their heart and doesnât find it easier to do so elsewhere?
This is going to be a continuous request and issue until we:
A.) Stop hemorrhaging so much money with barely anything in return.
B.) Have sustainable plans around our finances so that when vesting runs out, we have nothing to show for it.
If you do not like grants freezing, then come help us fix these issues.
Platform development, which has proven the hardest category to abuse as it requires real outputs, should not be frozen.
We may just yet see a âdead mallâ in Decentraland if we keep passing grants to give people funds on projects that have already been built or developed. It seems like Pablo and many others are all for slowing down the process and hindering DCLâs growth at the expense of the platform. I personally dont see $50k in value bringing in an old game nobody plays when the tech has massively changed in 4 years and we could use those funds to better the PLATFORM. (for everyone) Lets keep passing grants
that benefit a couple people while limiting growth and progress so nobody can build what is actually needed for DCL⌠(We are already there) If drastic changes arent made to where real grants that will benefit the platform can exist, then DCL will die. (and it wont take as long as you think)
Grant freezes are silly. Not building right now when all of the competition is seems kind of an odd business strategy. (what tech company has stopped spending money in the last decade?)
The DAO needs to better manage its own funds and grants process. The DAO should be working to INCENTIVIZE builders and creators that MOVE the platform FORWARD⌠NOT grants that take funds for things that have already been made, or to upgrade games and features almost nobody on the platform uses.
Builders are currently stuck using a broken builder that needs fixed, or proposing a grant for another builder to be made⌠which canât even pass with the horribly designed systems of the DAO. IN a few more years DCL will have more processes, hoops, and education (thanks Pablo for the proposal on further gatekeeping and increasing the barrier to entry for everyone in DCL, further pushing it down as a platform!) to go through in order to just place a vote.