[DAO:36023a5] Should We Revoke VP Delegation?

Governance
1

by 0x0c678c84cc5744f2a5b368ce2aeab3905624ff99 (BitcoinETF)

I believe the delegated VP’s are being utilized inappropriately and for personal gains in many cases.

Delegated Vp’s are causing harm to platform & treasury, resulting in ineffective decision making for bogus (fake - money grab) grants/projects to pass.

This ill mannered activity directly effects the DAO’s treasury & platform itselft. Altough the DAO’s treasury is on a fixed term budget spend per year, this doesn’t mean we should be handing out FREE MONEY and receive nothing in return.

Revoking the VP delegation is by no means a complete solution but it is a great start. I’ve mentioned about this in my previous comments. However the feedback I, received from Esteban’s delegated VP fam was an extremely unpleasant experience. Because for this group, taking away their 500,000 VP would mean they end up with almost nothing, some with even less than 100 VP. Which is basically nothing. Compared to 500,000 VP.

I am not saying they shouldn’t have a voice but their voice should be reflected proportionally based upon the platform assets they own. Mana, Land, Select L1 skins etc… In other words, if you want to have a stronger position in DAO why not show that by the platform assets you own? Show your support and become a Contributor or a Stakeholder so you can have more impact in decision making with your own money rather than someone else’s.

This might now be an easy thing to swallow & can be very upsetting for many. Becuase going from 500,000 VP to 100 VP or less is a devastating outcome. In the grand sceheme of things I truly believe this is a must & it’s a good start.

I am in the opinion for all Delegated VP’s to be revoved not just the Esteban’s Delegated VP’s. Land VP & Mana VP included.

This brings the question for those who travel frequently or those who don’t want to interact with their main accounts on the regualar basis. For this group I suggest a simple solution. Verified Linked Accounts. User has to verify they will be using an alternative adress or wallet & limit only one Verified Linked Account per user. We may also implement time based Verified Linked Accounts

I believe this is a great starting point

Please share your thoughts & opinions

  • Yes
  • No
  • Invalid question/options

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

2

Jason, how many times will you need to submit this before you are happy? This is the third one in 30 minutes.

142fads
142fads481×808 39.4 KB

You have more Alt accounts than anyone; stop it.

3

This will never pass as all the zero asset 500k vp delegation merchants will vote no :smiley:

4

This is a very elitist thing to say. Did you really just call some of the most active builders in Decentraland “Merchants”? *Some of the people who have kept this platform alive own no land, no wearables with VP, and few names, yet the harder THEY work, the higher YOUR assets increase in value. If they stop building, what happens to your assets??? :sweat_smile: :money_mouth_face:

As one of the “Zero Asset Merchants” you refer to, I’ll vote invalid so my vote won’t impact the decision and the people can choose for themselves what they want.

Just remember:

A person who wants to see Decentraland grow would want the decision making power in the hands of the most active people here.

A person who benefits from getting selected DAO proposals passed would seek to take that power away.

5

I believe delegation removal would solve a lot of issues with current voting system. But, if this is not possible, at least delegators should be restricted at amount of votes per day / per week / per month. They should be restricted.

6

Please elaborate. :point_up_2:

I would vote “NO” on this with 1 VP the same as if I had 1M VP.
Limiting the owner of the asset (or the asset itself) of what they can do with their property is no bueno imo.

7

Could you please specifically describe how the Delegation mechanism harms the DAO and how revoking it would fix it?
Also, are you aware that going against Delegation mechanisms is basically going in the opposite direction of any major DAOs out there? We’re not alone in this ecosystem, there are multiple projects (With much more resources, engagement, and professionals working on them) doing research, and they are all strengthening their delegation mechanism instead of removing them (See Gnosis as a great example, but also ENS, Lido or Arbitrum).
I understand your concerns regarding participation, and I share part of them, but I don’t see how removing the Delegation mechanisms would help.

8

Should We Revoke VP Delegation?

This proposal is now in status: FINISHED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes 8% 748,823 VP (36 votes)
  • No 78% 6,584,679 VP (30 votes)
  • Invalid question/options 14% 1,228,991 VP (9 votes)
9

Should We Revoke VP Delegation?

This proposal has been REJECTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xfb1afa4dc069ffb47b19dbee196045d508fcd5a2)