I find it really weird that this proposal has nothing to do with the Draft & Poll proposal.
We voted for freezing all grants beside platform and now you introduce a new thing in the last proposal this doesn’t make sense.
Why wasn’t this mentioned in the previous proposals?
And why does it look like only all the authors, beside Jarods will only benefit from this particular rule, they are also passing it with their by voting on their own proposal.
This is very manipulative.
IMO, one of the goals of that freeze was to focus the DAO work to the platform itself (new clients, new builders, new tools around Decentraland) instead of keep spending on content while the product itself is nowhere near to be ready.
but you voted to keep core units + platform, why would you allow them to manipulate the dao with misleading titles?
This proposal should be marked as invalid because the first two proposals have nothing to do with this one, Freezing everything but platforms doesn’t equal Freezing everything but core units andddd paltforms.
Thank you for your valuable insights; I always appreciate them. For clarification, I’d like to know if the DAO is tasked with developing the new client. Additionally, I’m curious about the results from the previous grant pause. Finally, regarding the DAO’s operational costs, which reportedly exceed 1.5 million dollars for 15 individuals, I learned about this from Jarod’s proposal to reevaluate Committee salaries.
def mark_as_invalid():
first_proposal = “Freezing everything but platforms”
second_proposal = “Freezing everything but platforms”
this_proposal = “Freezing everything but core units andddd platforms”
if first_proposal not in this_proposal and second_proposal not in this_proposal:
print("This proposal should be marked as invalid.")
mark_as_invalid()
The total of all last core teams grants is 290k, that’s less than 600k per year (which is still a lot, but not 1.5M) for 13 people.
The DAO is not tasked with anything, we don’t have any roadmaps, plans or guidelines.
The DAO is funding two alternative clients though, using Bevy and Godot engines.
Foundation’s client has been lacking and unstable (despite some improvements), we should not rely solely on it for the success of Decentraland. As a previous proposal suggest, it should only be a “reference” client.
We also cannot put all our eggs in the same basket and hope that the promised future client by the Foundation will solve all issues.
I don’t have access to the DAU stats, but I don’t believe it had any noticable impact over there. On a personal feeling side, the DAO looked more organized, with better discussions as we were focused on improving the DAO rather than arguing constantly about “why this grant is terrible” and “yes, but onboarding”
Renewal Grant Support Squad 2023H2 (decentraland.org)
Decentraland DAO Facilitation Squad Grant Proposal [RENEWAL]
Hire LordLike as DAO Strategic Unit (DAO worker) (decentraland.org)
DAO Governance Squad 2H2023 Budget Renewal (decentraland.org)
[RENEWAL] Facilitation Squad H1 2024 (decentraland.org)
Renewal Grant Support Squad H1 2024 [Resubmission] (decentraland.org)
721503$
This is a calculation from a year, Now imagine that there are more:
Grant Support Squad Renewal (decentraland.org)
Grant Support Squad (decentraland.org)
Governance Squad 1H2023 Renewal (decentraland.org)
Decentraland DAO
Here are some extra grant requests from before 1 year, so let just say the core units all took around 1.000.000$, How much more & how much longer do we have to pay the core units?
Or to be exact: 1.117.063$
If we gave 11170 people 100$ to check out Decentraland it would give us much more retention then having these squads.
@HPrivakos are you turning a blind eye on this issue as a DAO comittee member?
Drafts, particularly such poorly written ones, are to be open to feedback and alterations.
I did tell Fehz, who i believe is mostly a middleman and not actually the main author of this proposal, that this “implementation” mostly just makes sure the GSS can keep submitting props to be paid without joining his squad.
I only agreed to co-author so they’d keep the core unit budget reduced from 15% and didn’t object to it entirely, given a lack of a plan of substance, since gss will need to propose a meaningful action plan in a grant request if they apply for another while all others are frozen.
This entire proposal falls beyond the intended scope, and the title is highly misleading. Nobody is assigning blame to you; it’s likely you’ve been unwittingly roped into this scheme to ensure it proceeds without your interference.
If you took the time to at least read my message that you are quoting it would be nice.
all **last** core teams grant
133.4k+61.5k+94k = 288.9k for the next 6 months.
If you didn’t neglect my initial question, I wouldn’t neglect your whole essay.
It is not ethical for anyone who stands to make a financial gain from the passing of this proposal to vote here.
Who are you referring to? I don’t see any GSS or Governance Squad voters.
@CheddarQueso is right, @Fehz is voting in favor, likely driven by financial incentives. The decision to amend the original proposal in the final version by hastily adding core units raises concerns. Particularly, the community had previously approved two proposals, on freezing all grants but platform grants, which now seems like a manipulation tactic to pass the two other two proposals.
Not going to participate in this absurd discussion.
Please read carefully and consciously the previous proposal and you’ll find that this proposal is not benefiting me in any way.
Didn’t vote YES, NO or ABSTAIN in the previous one to avoid these kind of non-sense accusations. That is the only thing I’m going to say.
In the previous instance, you lacked financial gain, but in this one, you stand to benefit financially, and suddenly you vote yes!
Why is it absurd for me to say you have financial gain and the title is misleading.
Thank you for pointing the misleading title and acknowledging the financial gain involved.
Additionally, your use of your own VP to push this proposal doesn’t diminish the conflict of interest. Consider abstaining and acknowledging the title’s misleading nature.
Continuing your work is fine by me, as I believe it’s valuable. Just avoid engaging in CartL schemes.
Chris stop it
Fehz didn’t vote for a prop that he had financial interest in and your desire to spin up a narrative is just disgusting
