[DAO:6dd3348] Grant Support Squad (GSS) Guidelines and Accountability Framework | Revocation Trial

by 0xed0e0cb94f60f72ec94bef848f5df4cbd365af1d (InJesterr)

Empowering grants, safeguarding dreams: Uniting the GSS and Grantees through a proposal that secures trust, support, and a brighter future.

The purpose of this proposal is to establish a set of rules and guidelines for the Grant Support Squad (GSS) within the Decentraland DAO. The GSS’s primary responsibility is to support grant recipients and ensure accountability & support for their work. However, there have been concerns about the GSS’s approach to granting dilemmas and potential manipulation in a subjective manner in the process of proposing revocations. This proposal aims to address these concerns and create a fair and transparent framework for the GSS’s operations.

Unleashing the power of grants while fostering trust and support, this proposal establishes a robust set of rules. Designed to protect both the Grant Support Squad (GSS) and future grantees, it ensures that the GSS acts solely as a supportive entity and not a source of dilemmas. By implementing these rules, the proposal aims to eliminate concerns of demolition and foster a harmonious relationship, safeguarding the dreams and aspirations of all involved parties.

Grant Dilemmas and Revocation Process:

a. The GSS shall only raise dilemmas and propose revocations after a grant proposal has been passed.

b. During the revocation process, the grantee shall have the opportunity to present their case and defend themselves, similar to a court proceeding.

c. The GSS shall clearly communicate to the grantee that the suggestion to revoke their grant is only a suggestion, and they will build a formal proposal for revocation if deemed necessary.

Documentation Required for Grant Revocation:

a. Reason: The GSS must provide a clear and detailed explanation of the reasons for considering a grant revocation. This explanation should be objective, specific, and focused on the grantee’s failure to meet the agreed-upon objectives or fulfill the grant requirements.

b. Objective Evidence: The GSS must provide verifiable evidence that supports their claims of the grantee’s failure to meet the required standards. This evidence should be transparent and accessible to all DAO members.

c. Solution for Grant Continuation: In addition to raising concerns and proposing revocation, the GSS should also suggest alternative solutions for the grantee to continue their work, such as recommending modifications to the project plan or offering additional support.

Training and Accountability:

a. The GSS members should undergo comprehensive training to understand their roles, responsibilities, and the ethical considerations involved in their work.

b. The GSS shall be accountable for their actions and decisions. They should be transparent about their activities, providing regular updates and reports to the DAO community regarding their assessments, dilemmas, and revocations.


By implementing these guidelines and accountability measures, the Decentraland DAO can ensure a fair and transparent process for grant support and accountability. This proposal aims to establish clear rules for the GSS, promoting effective collaboration between grant recipients and the GSS while protecting the integrity and objectivity of the grant evaluation process.


Process for Executing the Proposal:

The Grant Support Squad (GSS) follows a transparent process for grant revocations within the Decentraland DAO. They create a proposal on the governance page, providing reasons, evidence, and a solution. The proposal link is posted under the grantee’s passed proposal for visibility. If it passes the GSS is allowed to pass it to The Revocation Committee that reviews the proposal. further steps are taken; if not, the GSS can retry after a 1 month period. This process ensures clear communication and community involvement in the decision-making process.

(GSS) Proposal Requirements:

a. The GSS provides first a reason in their proposal and explain more about their reason.

b. The GSS provides objective evidince to the case and the DAO community will be the jury to judge in the proposal.

c. The GSS initiates communication with the grantee to discuss the dilemma and explore potential solutions.

d. The GSS identifies a dilemma or issue with a grant recipient, such as possible solutions they can come up with or fulfill grant requirements.

e. The Grantee gets a chance to elaborate in the comments explaining on what went wrong or allowed to defend them selves in Revoke proposal! If the Grantee (Defendant) in this case fails to respond at all in this proposal, it passes directly to the revocation comittee.

Communication with Grant Recipient:

a. The GSS engages in open and transparent communication with the grantee, presenting their concerns and discussing possible resolutions.

b. The grantee has the opportunity to provide their perspective, address the concerns raised, and propose alternative solutions.

Proposal Creation:

a. The proposal outlines the reason for considering revocation, presents objective evidence supporting the claim, and suggests a solution for the grantee to continue their work if applicable.

Revocation Committee Review:

a. The proposal for revocation is submitted to the DAO as an pre- proposal, which consists of designated members within the Decentraland DAO.

b. When the proposal passes and the GSS & Grantee didn’t come to a conclusion together, The Revocation Committee reviews the proposal, assesses the evidence presented, and considers the potential impact on the grantee and the DAO community.

c. If the proposal passes the review by the Revocation Committee, further steps will be taken as outlined in the proposal. If the proposal does not pass, it is not considered for revocation at this time.

Retry Period:

a. If the proposal for revocation does not pass, the GSS is allowed to retry submitting a new proposal for revocation after a defined period, such as one month.

b. During this retry period, the GSS can continue engaging with the grantee to seek alternative resolutions or gather additional evidence if necessary.

Ongoing Monitoring and Support:

a. Regardless of the revocation decision, the GSS continues to monitor the progress of the grantee’s work, providing support and guidance as needed.

b. The GSS maintains regular communication with the grantee and the DAO community, providing updates on the situation and addressing any concerns or questions that may arise.

  • Yes
  • No
  • Invalid question/options

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot


Hello everyone :wave:

Recently with me, there has been a minor issue with the Grant Support Squad (GSS) within the Decentraland DAO but together we came out strong and came to a proper solution, altough the way of the approach was way over the line where i felt somewhat manipulated ( I know this wasn’t their intention ).

For this proposal while acknowledging their role as protectors and helpers, I attempted to devise a solution to address the matter. I proposed this idea of implementing a trial system to hold the GSS accountable for their actions and give them a book of rules to avoid future conflict, with this way we can give grantees a chance to elaborate with the community why it should’t go to revocation comittee. If a grantee disagrees with the GSS’s approach, they can express their concerns and remind them of the established rules. However, another recent incident involving my friend @Atrovenado highlighted a flaw in the GSS’s methodology. They presented my friend with three predetermined options without engaging in a proper discussion beforehand. In my opinion, this approach is not suitable, especially for a straightforward category where the community’s intentions were clear from the start and the community knew what they voted for!

I know it already had to be this a long time ago! but the way the GSS interpet their message is very manipulative by making the grantee always think that when they suggest a revoke it “always go to the revocation comittee”, when the fail to explain that they have to propose this aswell creating an illusion in the grantees head that they hold power over them.

Overall, this proposal makes sense and has the right direction imo. Some changes need to be made though.

It’s a starting point to build upon.

1 Like

I agree with @web3nit here. Essentially, we must figure out a new strategy and approach without all the decision-making power being centralized to one small unit (GSS).

Questions should be asked, solutions should be brought forth along with the feedback and explanation of the grantee, and efforts must be more collaborative (and less prescriptive).

Overall, I am in support this initiative and believe we can further improve what is being proposed here by @InJesterr.


This sounds fair in theory. How, in practice, will this be implemented?

On what grounds will the presented evidence be verified? Will the grantees also be subjected to the same standards of objectivity? Who is the arbiter of whether evidence is objective or subjective?

How will this be paid for? Who will determine the efficacy and quality of the training material? Who is going to administer the training? What standards will be applied for this training?

How is this going to work? If the DAO will ultimately be voting on whether or not a revocation of a grant is enacted or rejected, why then have a GSS deal with any aspect of revocation?

this sounds like it’s in response to a very specific situation - what happened and is it certainly the GSS’s responsibility? and their fault? seems like a better way would be to address the problem directly rather than an abstracted meta-solution, but…without knowing what’s happened it’s hard to say - voting invalid

Nobody is wrong here your missing the point, this way we can have rules that can be followed and the gss could even use it in their favor
By saying we are allowed to propose to revoke the grantee on these grounds that way the grantee can’t have hard feelings about it and make it a problem :+1:t2:

Rules are always better then chaos.

1 Like

When we propose the final proposal there will be a section to include the implementation of the the proposal. for now this is just a pre- proposal of an base idea.

Example on evidence objectice evidence:
The grantee promised to have host an event for 10000 people on their land but didn’t reach the goal to do so. with metrics this could be verified.

Example on subjective evidence:
Grantee promised to make a nice wearable thats high quality, but for example the community didn’t think it was high quality.

Well a training could be funded with 100k grant they got for their grant or the final person that is going to post the final proposal could include a video training for free.

The GSS has the sole purpose to verify grantees work and support them into having a smooth grant process teaching on how to secure your grant, how you should build the roadmap, what you can do to open- source it, give advice and support, they are the front line in this matter and not revocation so that doesn’t mean they should hold any power over anyone. Through a proposal we could decentralize decisions and thats what decentraland should be about. We can also have grantees getting their contract paused whenever a their is a revoke process when its proposed by the GSS only that what we don’t take away their credibility and understand the serioussness of the matter.

If they provide good enough evidence and reasons the community will automatically vote yes.

Also feel free to hit me up at anytime if you have any ideas for the draft that I also plan to work on if this passes that way we can have your suggestions maybe included aswell who knows :man_shrugging:t2:

Grant Support Squad (GSS) Guidelines and Accountability Framework | Revocation Trial.

This proposal is now in status: FINISHED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes 66% 6,486,894 VP (63 votes)
  • No 0% 0 VP (0 votes)
  • Invalid question/options 34% 3,352,133 VP (13 votes)

Grant Support Squad (GSS) Guidelines and Accountability Framework | Revocation Trial.

This proposal has been PASSED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)