I believe there is a clear pattern here of over inflating costs and under performing in promised expectations of user acquisition/retention.
Furthermore, the miniscule amount of the grant that is actually going towards work hours for in world content & platform development vs that being siphoned out to managers or overseers for providing very little other than a grant they themselves want to be paid money for contracting out.
I would advocate that any grants moving forward require individual people who will actually be responsible for performing the work should be the ones requesting the grant, contracting out solutions to centralized groups that donât have a positive presence in DCL should be an instant non-starter for any grant, especially those looking for 6-figures.
I didnât vote because I needed time to think and review details, but in general I donât like revocations, specially, DAO should pay if the grantee is delivering what is promised in the Specification and Roadmap sections, and this has been delivered by the grantee. This is not about if I like what is delivered or not, if itâs expensive or itâs cheap. We should respect the agreement that is voted even if later we think is expensive, this kind of proposal just make harder to make a good job, for long term proposals is really hard to fit in other details like personnel or expenses that could require flexibility; moreover I find too many subjetive reasons in this revocation proposal.
What maybe would help is to disallow long term grants or big budget grants in favor of renewals for future grants. There is a working group being built in relation to this passed draft, letâs improve the process rather than revocations, ârevocation = the DAO is doing something wrong that needs to be fixedâ: Limiting Grants per Proposal per Category
