I never agreed with the formation of yet another committee and more money spent on something the GSS was already doing with support from the community. However, we just elected them and I think we should allow this community-wide decision, which took time and arduous work to implement, a chance to function before changing the process yet again. The community already has the ability to revoke a grant by way of the governance process if there is an immediate need to. This would be unnecessary.
Hi, thanks for your feedback. This proposal aims to streamline the grant revocation process by aligning it with the existing governance process opportunities. This will empower the Community to act more efficiently by envisaging such cases and creating a protocol for them, thereby reducing the time and complexity involved in making these important decisions.
Seems like you should spend more time working on what the grant you got is paying you to do and less time trying to figure out how to hold onto that grant without actually working on it.
Should the Community Be the Final Arbiter in Grants Revocation Decisions ?
This proposal is now in status: FINISHED.
Voting Results:
- Yes 55% 5,916,057 VP (38 votes)
- No 1% 13,020 VP (14 votes)
- Invalid question/options 44% 4,746,309 VP (49 votes)
This Prop is silly, why would we want to leave the decision to revoke grants up to @RobL sounds counter productive to me 
1 Like
Hey, now there is more than 12 million VP in circulation only delegated by Esteban, so the decisions will be up to the Community.
Should the Community Be the Final Arbiter in Grants Revocation Decisions ?
This proposal has been PASSED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)
WILL BE?
We still have two stages of proposal to go through.
I think this proposal would slow down the revocation process and allow bad actors to steal even more money from the DAO.
why to steal more money if the funds are paused?
Because VP whales might vote to reinstate grants clearly being abused just because they are friends with the grantees.
If the revocation committee end up with the decision that the grant is not respecting their promises, then the grant should be revoked, not sent to a community vote.
Why have a revocation committee if their decision is not respected?
Thanks for remark. If approved, this process would only be activated in cases of disagreement with the Committee’s decision not always taking extra time. In my opinion, DAO’s involvement should ensure consistency in both grant enactment and revocation when needed.The Revocation Committee will still have an important role in the process, providing expert opinions and recommendations. The proposal aims to ensure that the Community will continue to play a substantive, not just ceremonial, role in the DAO governance process.
Why do you want to undermine a new system recently implemented that has not had a proper chance to work yet?
It feels you are not being honest with your motivation
1 Like
I want to align it with the current DAO governance process to help people save time and to ensure they know what to do. This is about having a clear protocol for such situations. My intentions resonate with my Delegate’s vision of promoting more decentralization.
Do you believe censorship is a centralized act? Do you believe censorship is a web3 principle?
Sounds like you are contradicting yourself.