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 continuum of Entertainment & Education for Women & Minorities (1 year)
As a result of discussion and the final vote, we suggest that this grant should not be revoked.
Voting Members:
Bay, Dax & MetaDoge (@bay, @dax, @MetaDoge)
Maryana (@maryana ) was asked to be substituted in this vote due to a relationship with the grantee.
Revocation Committee snapshot vote result:
Reasoning for revocation:
GSS Comments:
During our analysis of the grant, we did find possible reasons for revocation, foremost among them being something that the GSS mentioned - the documentation presented doesn’t contain enough information to demonstrate the depth of the work on the events. There is not enough information on the number of guests, the budget surrounding events or the content of said events in case of IRL events. We discussed this with the grantee and came to a conclusion which we will present in our recommendations.
Reasoning against revocation:
The major issue that we found in this case is that the roadmap is expansive rather than targeted - another point that we have made further recommendations about - and due to that, we find it impossible to concretely revoke the grant.
That does not mean that we see this grant as without problems, rather we see the process that allowed this grant proposal to be created as problematic.
Requirements to continue the grant:
While we do not recommend revocation, there are several requirements we would ask the grantee to agree to before the vesting contract is reinstated:
-
DAYDREAM | Web3 Entertainment Community and https://www.daydreamx.com/ need to state "funded by Decentraland DAO’’ because based on the grantee’s responses, DAYDREAMX output like the blogs is being funded by her DAO grant. This should be linked to the Decentraland DAO landing page.
-
Add “funded by Decentraland DAO” on all educational content released now and in the scope of this grant. The grantee must list specifics here - the boundaries between the grantee’s personal work and the work under this grant are very unclear.
-
Provide the slides shared at past and upcoming IRL events so these can be reused by the community. Again, “funded by Decentraland DAO” needs to be clearly stated in the presentations.
-
Organizational documentation such as budgets, guest counts and/or guest lists and informational / promotional material must be submitted with each update in order to determine the effectiveness of these events.
-
Clear milestones and a coherent explanation of the final shape of the course material must be presented to the community.
-
Content marketing strategies must be clearly stated and in-line with promises of the original proposal to make “content more searchable and accessible” - this can be simply to promote blog posts on twitter and discord communities, but we leave this up to the grantee.
When these six points are satisfied, we recommend that the vesting contract be unpaused. When questions arise, we are available to clarify these points if needed.
@Zino @fifitango @HPrivakos @Tobik @rizk
Further recommendations:
-
The requirements for a grant to be enacted should be updated to require clear KPIs that can be completed in the scope of the grant - e.g. expansive grants without clear structure and measurable milestones should not be enacted in the first place.
-
IRL events need to file a list of attendees, budget break down per event, all organizational paperwork, and any slides from any presenters. Guests should also be made to agree to a marketing release that by coming to the event they agree to having their photo taken and that it can be used for confirmation and/or marketing purposes by the DAO. Such releases are standardly offered in most ticketing and event software with purchase / acceptance of attendance.
-
re: conflicts of interest with the RC
a. When a case is raised to RC, we have 5 days to publicly state who will take the case. The members of the revocation committee should first examine themselves for bias and if it comes up (as it did for metadoge in the biennale case), ask to be removed from the case.
b. The grantee then has 5 days to claim any conflicts of interest, BUT doing so must meet an objective standard. Rules 1, 3 & 4 of the conflict of interest clause are already quite clear, but rule #2 (the rule in question here) is not. We believe the issue in question is one of objectivity and that point two should be changed to reflect that - “the member is recognized to be irredeemably biased against the grantee”
c. In the case that a conflict of interest based on rule #2 is raised by the grantee, they must give evidence of their cause for concern within the 5 days (point b above) and then members of the revocation committee (minus the member in question) will vote on this.
- If the member is removed, a substitute should replace them.
- If by the actions of the grantee, a member is removed and no substitute is available, the grantee accepts that their grant will be on hold either until a substitute becomes available or until a sole member of the committee agrees to take the case and the grantee agrees to this. In that case, that sole member should be paid the full case fee as it will represent a lot of work to do alone.
Thank you!
Revocation Committee