The revocations committee works on recommendations from the GSS and the community. This proposal takes power away from the community to have information available in real time, and to self-police, without the help of committees, which is the end-goal of the DAO. The community should have the information they need right away to bring up any concerns so the revocations committee can act, and even bypass the committee by putting forth a proposal to revoke a grant immediately, as was recently done with
Shielded voting only for those who have no delegated VP. Since the introduction of VP delegation a few years back, people started to abuse the system and hiding those votes would make things worse. But I agree that people with no delegated VP should have the option to vote in private unless they have a material VP position
3 Likes
What are these ways to deal with harassment in the community? And what if “the community” is the one harassing you?
I had an incident what wasn’t pretty and went to twitter for support since the parties involved had “muted my voice”/timed me out on their discord. I ended up getting MORE harrassment from “the community” and continue to feel like I am treated as much less for how I decided to deal with my harassment.
2 Likes
So we agree we have the Revocations Committee for it, which is my point. They cannot act unless they proposal has passed and receive recommendations from community and/or GSS. The grant has to pass to be able to put up another proposal to get it revoked immediately as well.
Although I can somewhat agree with having voters viewable lets you know who is voting for who or what, I believe it is exactly what people are doing instead of voting for the proposal itself using their own judgement, they vote either along with their friends or go after the voters for voting how they vote which is not the productive way of preventing scams or anyone abusing DAO.
There should be a level of privacy when voting just like in The real world when you vote for who you want during elections. There should be options for those who value privacy.
I have had my VP for not even 48 hrs and was already questioned for something out of thin air and I haven’t even voted for anything yet.
It’s easy to jump to conclusions and target people especially online.
Would like to minimize harassment, and keep things less dramatic when making decisions . . . .
1 Like
Sorry zom. You went through something like that. You are appreciated in this community. you put in a lot of time, energy and your creativity on this platform. We should all appreciate those things. Always place yourself where you are appreciated and seen. Unfortunately not all will show signs of respect.
But know there are those within the communities that do appreciate you.
1 Like
We cannot police voting to the point where we restrict transparency (one of the core tenants of web3 and DCL). There will always be bad actors and we have to be able to see and react in real time. The revocations committee cannot act until a grant is passed, but the community can act to prevent bad grants and shady voting before a grant passes. The community can also see, investigate and act on self-voting before a grant passes. We can see whales or bad actors playing the system, and prevent bad grants/proposals from every getting approved in the first place by voting as a community for the benefit of DCL. That is true community self-moderation and decentralization… without the need for committees.
Hello, I agree with this up to a point.
Whales are not a problem, I tend to think we need them, bad actors for sure get them out of here. Reason why I voted in support of this proposal is because many, myself included have either been harassed or shamed on for our voting choices, reached out to on dms in hopes we change our votes. This behavior has happened from people I don’t think are whales or bad actors at all. I understand we should be in support of each other and that some of us like and want our friends to succeed however we must respect each others voting decisions always.
One of the main things I see happening is, if a proposal is submitted by or voted in support from someone the community has already deemed shady, it turns to a hell of accusations without any concrete evidence almost immediately even if the proposal is against the core tenants of Web3 and DCL. I’m going to have to agree with Loaded above, in those cases I believe voters should be protected and we let the Revocations Committee do the work they were voted on for, of course with suggestions from GSS or community.
(Mind you I was not in favor of creating the committees in the first place but they are here now and I believe that to be a better process where bad actors can be still be called out in a productive manner).
1 Like
Would our Decentraland DAO like to add Shielded Voting to help solve voter apathy?
This proposal is now in status: FINISHED.
Voting Results:
- Yes 75% 6,315,048 VP (50 votes)
- No 1% 14,820 VP (9 votes)
- Invalid question/options 24% 2,097,091 VP (23 votes)
Thank you for your reply… I understand what you mean… and I’m prepared to accept the responsibility that comes with having large VP and a larger influence in the DAO. I almost wish someone would try with me… because I eat bullies for breakfast. I will not compromise on the values that web3 and decentralization are built on. We should set a precedent that this type of behavior will not be tolerated, and make these occurrences known to the entire community… so everyone knows who is shaming and harassing and trying to blackmail voters. I have not seen any of this:
We should have MORE transparency, not less. If someone is doing this… the whole community should be made aware, and presented with evidence. No one should be afraid to speak out or have to hide their vote. I appreciate your POV, and I will end my commentary here. Alas, the community has decided. I just really feel we are moving backwards with this, giving away transparency and relying more on committees.
1 Like
Would our Decentraland DAO like to add Shielded Voting to help solve voter apathy?
This proposal has been PASSED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)