by 0xd4f1cab694c4424c4796549edbb9b489789f4df5 (TudaMoon)
Currently, you only need one (1) proposal to get a grant approved, but you need three (3) to revoke a malicious grant. Currently, we have a Grant Support Squad and a Revocations Committee implemented by the DAO. These current processes are NOT permanent solutions as they must be re-enacted by the DAO in order to continue. The DAO always has the ability to make the final decisions over grants; whether it means overriding the GSS or Revocations Committee through a DAO proposal, or bypassing the GSS or Revocations Committee through a DAO proposal.
The current problem with the DAO proposal for grant revocations or overriding GSS or Revocations Committee’s decisions is that it takes way too much time before a grant’s vesting contract is paused. Three (3) proposals takes too long while the DAO funds have potential to be drained.
- Create a new proposal Category for DAO called Grant Revocation.
- This new Category would come with a new process of revocation.
- First revocation stage if passed (in favor of revoking) by DAO would pause the vesting contract for the grant in question.
- Second revocation stage will bypass the Grant Support Squad’s recommendation and automatically bring the grant in question up for review by the Revocations Committee. The Revocations Committee will then determine whether the grant is revoked or not revoked. The Revocations Committee will take information from the Grant Support Squad and evidence provided on the forum, updates and more to determine if the grant should or should not be revoked. They have 14 days total to make that determination and give a public update on their ruling/determination.
- Invalid question/options
Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO
View this proposal on Snapshot
@web3nit You just know your Strategic Unit would be the first to be frozen. We already know you only vote for what’s best for you.
And what’s best for the CartL
I think @esteban have to reconsider his delegations
All I can see is a build up scheme you are trying to setup, so that your other proposal can revoke totally centralized just by a small group through one proposal…
Nice try, big NO…
I think The community should know that you are obviously trying to empower the revocation comittee and that you are also trying to keep your bonds strong with them to do make things go your way, I also don’t trust you when it comes to proposals since you have shown your true colors exposing ckbubbles personal photos with no reasons because you were simply not accepted and she was favored over you in the very same committee we are talking about right now.
I drawed out her CKs images but believe its still in the discord revocation-comittee channel posted by tudamoon after feeling defeating for not being selected for the comittee…
You also harassed me for voting yes on a proposal making you very immature and showing no heart when it comes to intentions.
Tudamoon harassing me in dms:
As a person dealing with all these harassment and threats, I am not confident enough to trust you and the people you are harassing & threatening us with.
for example here @dogman suggested me to be revoked, without verifieng my work. later we came to an agreement and he unsuggested me after admitting that he actually didnt do full really look into our project or if I was fulfilling our projects duties or not.
I’m not saying he did this with malicious intentions but it definetely starts with me being suggested just because I have a history of voting in the best interest of a certain group.
Then we have @DedHeadJ that was excited to say that I am next to deal with a revoke proposal while she has admitted under my proposal she has no clue about since she is not a gamer…
This is not personal. I know you vote to benefit yourself personally on everything you vote for, but there is no need to bring the attention on me. I am not bringing up a grant. This is about governance.
Metatrekkers will be voting Against this because of one wallet that doesnt even have a decentraland profile. https://governance.decentraland.org/profile/?address=0xf2b308323E88C9413089c13521D404f551A4b666
I wonder whose wallet it is… They vote for MetaGamiMall LandlordDAO and Metatrekkers.
Seems like they feel threatened by this.
If you want it to pass, please vote For.
It is personal when you show heart to revoke anyone and then try to empower the revocation comittee through these proposal, dont tell me you do all this all of the sudden.
We all know you have a history of malicious intentions.
Feeling threatend is different then being threatend, I have shown the evidence so dont act like I am scared because of how I vote.
Add Grant Revocation as a new Proposal Category for DAO (Updated)
This proposal is now in status: REJECTED.
- For 42% 5,752,344 VP (58 votes)
- Against 54% 7,231,533 VP (31 votes)
- Invalid question/options 4% 650,875 VP (3 votes)
lol so ridiculous but im glad you tagged me. I originally thought @InJesterr 's grant should be revoked bc most of the updates were the same models reskinned with different colors or simple UI pngs. However, I did admit that maybe I was over assuming apologized to @InJesterr and team for perhaps being too hasty. In retrospect, after today’s Testing Tuesday, that was a bit premature. I encourage everyone to watch the recording back. You will see hardly any functionality and almost nothing working. Injester has had to reschedule because it was such a bad showing even by his own accord. I am again recommending either a pause or revocation of this grant based on the evidence showed at today’s testing tuesday. I have never gone for anyone personally and the idea that I would suggest you be revoked because of how you vote is a blatant lie.