[DAO:294685a] A Multi-Platform Entertainment Series Designed to Boost DCL Brand Awareness

[dao]

A Multi-Platform Entertainment Series Designed to Boost DCL Brand Awareness

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

Vesting Contract Address: 0x1B3fBdd969D2A04Aad89cdd100E8432129e5521f

[Zino]

Dear Community Members,

The Grant Support Squad was created to support the grantees in achieving their goals and take care of the DAO treasury.

Three formal requests were presented about this project. One was dismissed (card 13), and two moved forward (cards 21, 27) and after thoroughly reviewing this project, the Squad wants to showcase valuable information and our observations.

• The concerns were:

• Allocation of Funds.

• Metrics and Target Audience.

• Engagement metrics.

• Some recap of the project:

Grant Details:

• Grant Size: $186,500 USD in DAI
• Project Duration: 10 months

Objective:

MetaTrekkers (MT) requested a Grant from the Decentraland DAO to develop and expand their initiatives in the metaverse. Their proposal aims to create an artist-supporting and arts-expression platform within Decentraland to foster a thriving virtual community.

The objective is to bring artists and metaverse users together. They focus on developing and promoting entertainment events, sessions, and talks that engage users and reward their participation.

Plan:

How do they plan to do it?

• The grant will cover event development, marketing, and advertising to enhance the Decentraland user experience.
• The project seeks to expand Decentraland’s brand awareness as a user engagement-focused metaverse.
• MetaTrekkers plans to turn art and entertainment series into Decentraland resident events, attracting newcomers from artists’ fanbases.
  • How? Through BeatTrekkers. A DJ battle series in the metaverse, engaging competing artists and their fans, venues as well as the broader Decentraland and MetaTrekkers community.
  • The series aims to attract new audiences interested in NFT music and participation in the developing metaverse community.

They showed a roadmap to achieve the main objective (developing and promoting entertainment events, sessions, and talks that engage users and reward their participation).

• After gathering information from the community, the grantee, DCL Metrics, and Metrics from the Foundation, these are the results from the data taken from May 1 to August 31:

Data sent by the Grantee

Data gathered by GSS 1

Data analysis 2 (Venue - unique user - cost)

Graphic 1

Graphic 2.

The colors are to identify the payments made, detailed on graphic 1

---

• Let’s dive deeper into the results and budget allocation:

Results from the data taken from May 1 to August 31 (period analyzed)

• The project made 3 concerts, 36 BassTrekkers and 22 Pre Show, 23 Post Show, and 55 Main Show. Also, it housed 24 guest hosts and 17 streamers.
  Overall 180 activities were produced.
• 180 activities in terms of payments (venue, artists, host) cost: $23,668.39
• 43 DJs performed.
• 22 guest artists were hosted.
• 17 streamers were paid.
• 38 venues participated in the project.
• 804 Twitter accounts joined Twitter Space
• During that period of time, 866.46 total active users (a user that visited the world and moved at least to one scene) were attracted.
  • Note: please see the spreadsheet called DATABASE for more details. At venues such as “Decentral Games” due to the large total active users that the venue has, we calculated the difference between total Active users on a BeatTrekkers event day and subtracted the total average of Active users of that location during the month analyzed.
• The cost to produce these 180 activities was $83,470.49, which is compounded by:

Execution Team	$ 15,994.15
Marketing Ads	$ 11,800.00
Venue and Event Support Team	$ 11,750.00
Graphic Designer & Video Editors	$ 11,977.14
Community Management	$ 6,400.00
Artists	$ 6,800.00
Competition Prizes	$ 2,550.00
Publications (Forbes & Bloomberg)	$ 2,000.00
Host - Twitter Space + Host Fee - Main Battle	$4,268.39
Miscellaneous	$ 1,460.81
Hardware Server	$ 2,620.00
Streamer	$ 850.00
SDK Development	$ 5,000.00
TOTAL	$ 83,470.49

The item Marketing ads ($11,800.00) is compounded by;

Advertising	$ 1,800.00
Email Marketing	$ 900.00
SEO	$ 2,200.00
Social Media Ads	$ 3,200.00
Social Media Management	$ 1,900.00
Content	$ 1,800.00

We asked to the grantee if he can detail about what have they done by month in terms of Social media ads and the answer was:

“We delivered these ads with the goal of brand awareness.

Ad types - Native, Banner, Interstitial

Age range:

25-34 39.2%

35-44 30.4%

Audiences include people likely to be interested in DCL and potential events. We also targeted people who work in Blockchain technology or are affiliated with new trends. - Blockchain Strategist, Chief Blockchain Officer, Blockchain Developer, Blockchain Consultant, Cryptocurrency Trader, Real Estate Business Owners, Information Technology Manager, Information Technology.

Other audiences include people looking to learn more about the metaverse.

Each month’s budget spent:

$275 Linkedin

$275 Instagram

$250 Twitter”

The Grantee, in their proposal, mentioned that as a return of impact, the target audience for this grant was 272,000. Later we asked about how they would get to that number, and the Grantee responded: “Target Audience of 272,000 were derived from the consolidated number of followers of the participating DJs, Artists and Venues, assuming that we will be able to reach them through our cross posting materials.”

Later, we asked the grantee if they could show the metrics mentioned on social media, and the answer was:

MetaTrekkers Twitter Activity
MAY JUNE JUL AUG
Impressions 1600 (50 per day) 4330 2100 1600
Engagement 5,7% x x 5,7%

BeatTrekkers Twitter Activity
MAY JUNE JUL AUG
Impressions 72400 42300 31500
Engagement 9.3% 8,5%
Tweets

The information that the grantee gives regarding BeaTtrekkers said:

(Quote)“Since Beattrekkers started:

Mentions: 84 (+100%)

Social Media Reach: 236K (+100%)

Interactions: 457 (+100%)

So, It’s not clear the timeframe analyzed (if this is since this last grant started or since Beattrekkers exists.)

—---------

• Grant Support Squad observations:

We need a benchmark to compare the user number of BeaTTrekkers.

So, we analyzed information from the Foundation, DCL Metrics and Governance Page (transparency section), and we prepared the following database.

Venues - Info

Glossary:
Place: it is a scene composed of one or more than one location.

Active user: a user that visited the world and moved at least once on the scene

Unique User: indicates that an entity (e.g. user) has only been counted once, regardless of how many occurrences it features in the dataset. For example, Count of ‘Unique attendees’ in a festival means every attendee has been counted only once, regardless of how many different days the user was present at the festival. In contrast, the keywords ‘daily unique attendees’ means every attendee is counted once for every day the user has been active. Note this is the standard way of counting users, so common metrics such as DAU, WAU and MAU (Daily, Weekly and Monthly Active Users) are computed in this precise way too, despite not featuring the keyword ‘Unique’ or ‘Distinct’. For example, a ‘Monthly Active User’ for the month of April will count as one regardless of whether the user was active in one, ten or twenty days of April.

---

Regarding the concerns raised:

• Budget Allocation

The principal concern raised (21, 27) by the community was understanding how the project was using the funds and where they were being allocated. After requesting this information to the grantee, we received a detailed allocation of funds (above as Budget Allocation shown by BeatTrekkers).

What we know now, is that the cost per user gained is $96.95, which, compared with other active grants that also have done events in-world (community-engaging events) during May, June, July, and August, is higher than the median. For reference, we attach the following chart, in which the Grant Support Squad has calculated the cost per unique user on the grantees analyzed.

Another relevant piece of information is that we noticed that the payments allocated towards the production of the events (artists, venues, hosts, streamers) is $23,668.39, and the DAO is funding the MetaTrekkers team with a payment of $59,802.10.

Execution Team	$ 15,994.15
Marketing Ads	$ 11,800.00
Graphic Designer & Video Editors	$ 11,977.14
Community Management	$ 6,400.00
Competition Prizes	$ 2,550.00
Publications (Forbes & Bloomberg)	$ 2,000.00
Miscellaneous	$ 1,460.81
Hardware Server	$ 2,620.00
SDK Development	$ 5,000.00
TOTAL	$ 59,802.10

Role	Total Amount allocated
	0
DJ	$4,600.00
Guest Artists	$2,200.00
Host	$4,268.39
Streamer	$850.00
Venue	$11,750.00
Grand Total	$23,668.39

• Engagement Metrics
  Based also on concerns raised, we have analyzed the Unique Users among active grants who make events which generate community engagement (Dcl Brasil, Dollhouse, Serena Ellis -In World-, Stoney Eye, SugarClub,) to understand the performance of the grantee in terms of engagement metrics. We have found that the average Unique Users between active grants that have also done events in-world is of 937,24 between May and August, which reveals that this grantee is low-performing, compared to its peers.

• Target Audience

When in-world grantees apply to the grants program, the person submitting the proposal is asked in a form about the performance metrics of their grant. Under the In-world content category, in the section 5 named Category Specific Assessments, there are 3 questions:

1. How many pieces of content are you planning to produce, 2) how many users do you expect to engage with this content, and 3) How are you going to measure the engagement (newly populated land, active users, returning users, and time on scene).

2. We know that the pieces of content are the events, which are being reported monthly and are being accomplished.

3. The grantee hasn’t specified how many users they expect to engage with the content. They answered this field in the form of their proposal that their target audience is 272,000.
   When we asked them what this 272,000 is counted for, the grantee responded that “Target Audience of 272,000 were derived from the consolidated number of followers of the participating DJs, Artists and Venues, assuming that we will be able to reach them through our cross posting materials.”

Later we asked more detailed about this and the Grantee answered:

(Quote) “We derived our Target Audience from the number of followers of all our partners for BeatTrekkers 2. Here’s the list of people who are part of BeatTrekkers 2 and their consolidated followers in each sheet: BT2 Partners - SocMed Following - Google Sheets

This metric, even illustrating the target audience, is not fulfilling the metric of the category. The grantee is not responding to the number of users of Decentraland but instead of it, the grantee explains the number of followers “of the participating DJs, Artists and Venues, assuming that we will be able to reach them through our cross-posting materials.”.

KPIs should have been referred to in-world users.

3. The grantee explained that: “The metric of engagement will be measured through the visitors of the land during BeatTrekkers Series 2 and 3 battle. This includes the artists themselves and the community supporting them. Since we are expecting various artists all over the world from different communities, we are also expecting higher traffic”.

We have gathered this information, and the Unique Users they have brought between May 1 through August 31 is 866,46.

Conclusion:

• The project made 3 concerts, 36 BassTrekkers and 22 Pre Show, 23 Post Show, and 55 Main Show. Also, it housed 24 guest hosts and 17 streamers.
  Overall 180 activities were produced.
• The total number of active users for BeatTrekkers so far is 866,46.
• 1 active user cost: $96.95 ($83,470.49 / 866,46)
• has failed to be clear on their proposal about the metrics for their category. (proposed target audience = 272,000. KPI is not aligned with the In World Content Category Specific Assessments, which should have been referred to in-world users).

Based on the concerns that the community raised, we have analyzed this grant and validated that the concerns were legitimate.

So far, the Grant Support Squad hasn´t elevated to the Revocations Committee cases because a grant project is expensive. This doesn’t mean that we are in a position to disregard community concerns if the Revocations Committee decides that the reasons exposed are valid to be revoked.

Even though the grantee has failed to be clear on their proposal about the metrics for their category, we have been able to gather the category data through DCL Metrics, and Decentraland Foundation, and the Grantee is performing lower stats than its peers, but they are accomplishing their grant in terms of production (events).

In conclusion, we elevate this case (@MetaTrekkers) to the Revocations Committee (@dax @bay @MetaDoge @maryana ), recommending to the DAO Committee (@HPrivakos @Tobik @rizk ) to pause the vesting contract until they define if all the evidence presented in this case is enough reason to revoke the vesting contract of this project.

Grant Support Squad.

[dogman]

thank you for the in depth report. The most striking piece of info to me was “Another relevant piece of information is that we noticed that the payments allocated towards the production of the events (artists, venues, hosts, streamers) is $23,668.39, and the DAO is funding the MetaTrekkers team with a payment of $59,802.10.”

how can team payment be 3x the cost of putting on events?

[mazafaka]

MT team even forgot to renew their ENS… for like 3 months.

I would like to see this revoked. I’m bored from “web3 builders” and their sh*ts.

[Shiny]

Very good analysis! Also big thanks to community members who raised the concerns through formal requests! I had already lost hope that this grant by the slimy MetaTrekkers would ever get revoked.

[MetaTrekkers]

It is concerning to hear about the undue pressure from certain individuals within the community that GSS has been facing. It’s important to acknowledge the challenging dynamics and the potential influence of such pressures on decision-making.

Given the context, it appears that the sudden change in GSS’s assessment after six months may be a result of external pressures and concerns. It is essential for the Revocation Committee to carefully evaluate both GSS’s report and our defense below to determine the validity and merit of the claims. This is a critical step in ensuring fairness and justice in the decision-making process.

The Revocation Committee (@dax @bay @MetaDoge) should prioritize upholding the integrity of the grant process and making decisions based on valid, transparent, and community-focused criteria, rather than succumbing to external influences. It is crucial to consider the facts and evidence provided by all parties involved to make a well-informed decision that aligns with the best interests of the community and the project in question.

So let’s refine and discuss it one by one.

A. Metrics

A.1 First is the metrics that the GSS reported about the metrics. Upon onboarding a grantee, the Grant Support Squad (GSS) typically suggests utilizing Atlas or DCL metrics to facilitate metric tracking and ensure accountability to the community. When we initially onboarded six months ago, we received an email from GSS (please see screenshot below), and at the bottom of the email, you can observe GSS recommending DCL metrics. We subsequently engaged in several conversations with GSS on various occasions to clarify the specific metrics associated with DCL and how we could utilize them. We reached a mutual agreement with GSS, confirming our intention to employ DCL Metrics for monitoring our progress. If necessary, we can furnish evidence of the receipt of these communications.

In the report of GSS, it states that the total number of people that attended our event is only 866.46 with the following attendees by month, which confused us, because this is not the number that appears in the DCL metrics.

Regrettably, when we inquired with GSS regarding the source or methodology behind these numbers and data points, we did not receive a response. Because in the DCL metrics, it states a totally different number from the report of the GSS, please see table below:

The figures are from DCL metrics, for which we possess concrete data substantiating our claims. We fully understand the importance of transparency, and in the interest of transparency, we encourage community verification of the information we provide. It is unfortunate that we have encountered a similar issue with GSS in the past, and assurances were made that such situations would not recur. It appears, however, that we find ourselves in a repetitive cycle.

Our concern arises from the question of why grantees are advised to use DCL metrics while the data the GSS uses remains unverified and untraceable by anyone else. We advocate for a unified system, as initially agreed upon, to ensure consistency and reliability. This inquiry leads us to question whether DCL Metrics is not deemed credible by the committee.

For the past six months, we have consistently submitted our reports in alignment with the previously agreed-upon metrics system. Therefore, the recent suggestion to adopt an alternative metrics system raises concerns and requires clarification.

A.2 Upon closer examination of the findings provided by GSS, it becomes evident that there is a chart included that appears to lack coherence or logical consistency. (Please see screenshot below)

Exhibit A: Regarding Wonderzone Row #77, GSS data indicates a figure of 24. However, when we compare this to our DCL metrics chart at the bottom, the numbers do not align.

In contrast, when we reference the DCL metrics, which is a project funded by the Dao, we observe that there are 71 individuals involved with Wonderzone Row #77. Furthermore, when we engaged in a discussion with Wonderzone, they acknowledged that the arena typically has a sparse attendance, and the recorded number of 71 visitors is notably higher than what they have experienced recently. (Please see screenshot below)

Exhibit B:
Second for Row #68 it says -4, Row #74 it says -7 and Row #85 it says -2.

It raises a valid concern as to how it could be conceivable for any venue to have a negative value in attendance, because in our reference to DCL Metrics:

Decentral Games was at 30 attendees

Meta GamiMall had 143 attendees and BitCinema had 9.

Here’s our detailed report and screenshots from DCL metrics: DCL Metrics - Google Sheets

A.3 There are many typo mistakes for Unique User - in World data here but GSS has calculated this into our results.

BeatTrekkers - Data

I would like to emphasize that we are unfamiliar with this form, and it is unclear who created it. This is the first time we have encountered this document, and its logic is not readily comprehensible to us.

B. Metrics vs Cost

I would like to reiterate the point made earlier, especially for the benefit of GSS, as illustrated in the image above. For Series 1, Bass Trekkers only hosts 12 events, consisting of 12 pre-events, 12 main events, and 12 post-events, totaling 36 events per series. We find it challenging to discern the purpose and relevance of the statistics presented in the charts below from GSS. It appears there may be some confusion regarding our project on the part of GSS.

Secondly, in the screenshot and link provided below, you will find the information that we have conveyed to GSS on multiple occasions. It’s important to note that the content in this link aligns with the messaging we have consistently shared with GSS, as well as the preferences expressed by the community through their votes.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_vcY2CrtjQP4MSZparUDudgMI8YEk8QE?usp=share_link

We have been in ongoing discussions for nearly six months, and it’s only now that the issue of clarity regarding our proposal is being raised. We have diligently submitted DCL Metrics to GSS on a weekly basis following each event. Therefore, the metrics data that GSS are submitting to the revocation committee is what we have already shared with GSS. If there have been any uncertainties in our communications over the past six months, it would have been helpful for them to be addressed earlier.

Additionally, there’s an interesting point to note. The Dao compensates us for hosting our Twitter spaces. However, when evaluating the data, it seems that Twitter space data is omitted, and the cost is factored in without considering the return on investment. This may give the appearance of being misleading. We have developed a chart based on our Twitter spaces, using the same formula. (Please see screenshot below)

(Some screenshots from GSS’ Report that we would like to answer)

Screenshot 1&2:

Indeed, as we have substantiated our position with accurate and reliable data, it raises an important question. Should we consider revoking grants simply on the basis of subjective judgments about their expense, particularly when the community has already expressed their support for these initiatives through their votes? This situation underscores the significance of upholding the decisions made collectively by the community and relying on verifiable data and metrics when evaluating grant recipients.

Screenshot 3:

The information provided in the document below clearly indicates that the Execution team is associated with a payment of $15,994.15. However, the reference to the MetaTrekkers team with a payment of $59,802.10 seems inaccurate and misleading. We would like to emphasize that only $15,994.15 was allocated and spent for the MetaTrekkers Execution Team, while the rest was paid to third parties who are also part in bringing success to this project.

For example: @HPrivakos, we are paying him for the streaming services but he is not part of the MetaTrekkers execution team.

Screenshot 4:

Here is a link to target audience definition and the different types. We specially explained to you about the followers and gave you a document with the metrics. We also included a link to help you better understand this concept further. Also we have attached a picture for you as well.

5 Steps to Find Your Target Audience (With Examples!)

Screenshot 5:

Above we already explained why this is inaccurate and we again here have included the actual charge from a credible source with the metrics and pics.This information above is false and not accurate.

In this link, you will find where we derived the 272,000 Target Audience, which is actually from the followers of our partners - DJs, Venues, Guest Artists, etc.: BT2 Partners - SocMed Following - Google Sheets

With that said, we would also like to share with you the social media analytics of BeatTrekkers:

Screenshot 6:

We are glad you wrote this because we are way above this.

C. Revocation due to cost

Lastly, should we consider setting a precedent for grant revocation based on the perception of high costs, while disregarding the decisions made by the community? If the community has voted in favor of a project and the grantee is delivering on their promises, should we employ “excessive cost” as a justification for revocation? This criterion is highly subjective, and in the following discussion, we will demonstrate this subjectivity. Furthermore, we should also address the metrics presented by the Grant Support Squad to the Revocation Committee.

GSS mentioned that the cost per user is $96.95, when it’s ONLY $39.96 (if it includes Twitter Space attendees) and $46.10 (if it’s only DCL Unique Users). As mentioned earlier, the GSS was unable to present accurate data with regards to the metrics, hence the computation of cost per user was incorrect. Below is our computation based on the data we have gathered from DCL Metrics.

In conclusion, we hope that the Revocation Committee will look at the accuracy of the data, and the project’s commitment to deliver its promise. Again, we would like to reiterate that from the very beginning, GSS agreed to use the DCL metrics to measure the analytics of our project. Secondly, the report that the GSS has inaccurate and incorrect data. Lastly, “excessive cost” is not a justification for revocation.

[revocationcommitee]

Hi Community,

Our team, the Revocation Committee received a request from the Grant Support Squad to discuss this case and make a decision in regards to the following proposal

A Multi-Platform Entertainment Series Designed to Boost DCL Brand Awareness

A Multi-Platform Entertainment Series Designed to Boost DCL Brand Awareness

As a result of discussion and the final vote, we suggest that this grant should be REVOKED. @HPrivakos @Tobik @rizk

Voting Members:

@bay @dax @MetaDoge

@maryana was asked to be substituted in this vote due to personal conflict with the grantee.

Revocation Committee snapshot vote result:

https://snapshot.org/#/revocationscommittee.eth/proposal/0x775e392429d4eb3f595a5387b9868b02355313a821cd9ec042c6bee48d2de54f

Reasoning for revocation:

The points made by the GSS are as follows:

1. The project made 3 concerts, 36 BassTrekkers and 22 Pre Show, 23 Post Show, and 55 Main Show. Also, it housed 24 guest hosts and 17 streamers. Overall 180 activities were produced.
2. The total number of active users for BeatTrekkers so far is 866.
3. 1 active user cost: $96.95 ($83,470.49 / 866)
4. [The grantee] has failed to be clear on their proposal about the metrics for their category. (proposed target audience = 272,000. KPI is not aligned with the In World Content Category Specific Assessments, which should have referred to in-world users).

The first three points are simply factual - however, we don’t believe that a high active user cost is necessarily cause for revocation, although it can be a red flag. We have therefore instead agreed to focus on point #4, which seems to be the real crux of this issue both for the community, the GSS and the grantee.

The main argument of the grantee is that “target audience size” as referred to in the original proposal is not defined explicitly and that their team is therefore at liberty to define it as they wish. After referring to all the source materials and speaking with the grantee, we believe that it is clear from the way the grant proposal form is laid out, as well as from the expectations of the community and the goals of a DAO backed grant program, that the target audience size is clearly referring to in-world users.

External Image

Furthermore, the grantee has pointed to the fact that they have a high level of social media reach. However, this reach is mainly achieved through paid campaigns. Conversion to engaged followers or in-world users appears to be low For example, the main twitter account for the grantee has only 350 followers.

External Image

Further recommendations:

We recommend that the grantee (@MetaTrekkers) files a new proposal for the second half of the proposed grant, keeping in mind to set reachable and appropriate goals and to focus on bringing users into the DCL ecosystem.

We further recommend that the governance team (@ginoct) make explicit that “target audience size” refers to in-world users for grants in the “in-world content” category.

Thank you!

Revocation Committee