no, anyone have enough intellect, but you don’t want to read, and that’s is ok if you are not interested, but the worst is you doing public defamation without knowing what the project is about.
@jar0d
Currently, there are two proposals with the same topic (assigned budget to category). Particularly, this one and Refine Grant Categories and percentage of budget (Stage B)
If both proposals pass, only platform stays, which means cutting the Budget assigned to the next Q by half ( 50% of the budget will be allocated to Platform according the stage B proposal passes), because this proposal does not mention anything about invalidating the current system to allocate funds that we have according to our governance process.
2 Likes
Would have been good of you to participate in the governance process snd comment on the very popular poll or draft proposal with this valid concern. Sadly you choose to ignore it until Esteban supported it.
but we support this one. In fact, I invite you to read the Refine Grant Categories and percentage of budget (Stage B) governance, where we allocated 50% for platform according to the community input and taking into account a clear pathway to do it, and also our governance process.
last but not least, your comment does not bring the answer. What I’m raising is that we have 2 proposals ongoing (and this proposal was posted after our proposal), and if both pass, Platform will have 50% of the budget and not 100%.
So, please do not troll, and bring objective arguments if you want to discuss it.
1 Like
No one is trolling anyone.
You didn’t ask a question.
It would seem that if this passes, there will be plenty of time to submit another proposal to adjust the allocation of spending or to use the unspent 50% to buy as much ETH as rizk wants.
I object to the premise that the DAO has to spend 100% of the MANA it receives. This is not an objective truth.
Holding on to MANA to build out a robust treasury is a valid use of MANA
Infact, it would make future budgeting much easier if we had reserves to base out future spending off of, instead of just spending 70% (assuming MANA doesn’t fluctuate wildly in value from the start of the quarter) of the vesting contract.
yeap. I voted no because, as I mentioned, the proposal doesn’t have a clear pathway and brings more complications than solutions.
But definitely, we agree that Platform should have most of the budget. However, without a plan for spending it, it is a risk, but that is another discussion.
2 Likes
Hi all! I’m stopping by to share some concerns regarding the Proposal.
The first thing to mention is that, from the GSS perspective, we generally don’t see the decision to allocate a larger percentage towards platform projects as a bad one. While we recognize the importance of generating greater brand awareness and new content from the DAO, to continue building community, we understand that the community today wants to pause the rest of the categories and leave only the platform.
That said, we’re concerned about some aspects of the proposal, especially how it will be implemented:
- The budgeting proposal we made (Stage B) will most likely pass before this one. This means that of the total budget per quarter for the rest of 2024, 50% will be paused, and the rest will go to the platform category (not 100% of the budget will go to the platform). Did those who voted know this?
- In terms of the governance process, as was voted in the original budgeting proposal, any budget change should be proposed differently: evaluating the percentages by category, redesigning percentages and budgets. Don’t you think it’s important to honor what was approved in that proposal? [quote: “It’s also necessary to agree on the distribution of the funds over different categories of projects. This will prevent allocating 95% of the funds to one category and not leaving space for other important initiatives. The DAO should agree on a diversification strategy and revisit it periodically”].
- Additionally, the platform category is well defined in the already approved category proposal. This proposal talks about requirements/conditions different from those approved, and again, this is not the ideal process to redefine categories. So, based on what criteria are we going to implement this proposal: with that of the approved categories or with what is mentioned here regarding the platform category?
- Where will the budget for the “Facilitation Squads” come from? Who will define that?
- Another issue that is not entirely clear: What happens with the grants in the voting period that applied before the closure of this proposal and could be approved later? It is not clear if the proposal cancels the grants in voting from other categories that have not yet passed or if it refers only to new applications.
- Another issue not considered here is the process of biddings and tenders. The reality is that if we have a clear strategy for the platform, the most important projects could move into the territory of tenders which doesn’t have a cap on budget (in addition to the role of the Foundation, obviously). Do you really believe that by limiting funding to Platform, DCL’s performance problems will be solved?
Last insight:
Wouldn’t it be beneficial for the community to rethink this type of proposals and reassemble a new one with a clear implementation pathway that takes into account all these issues?
Thanks for reading! And we are available to move forward with this.
3 Likes
I built some platform improving infrastructure and I can even get one yes vote…
So this proposal might as well be “pause all funding”…
You can integrate this into the platform but that’s also straight no votes…
Decentraland is an opensource and decentralized metaverse. If you can’t improve either of those things then gtfo.
I’m voting yes but actually pay your Platform improving grant’s while you’re at it…
- You guys revoke grants for a living and you can’t revoke your own? Doesn’t make sense to read through all that stuff just to push an idea through…
- ^^^^^
- ^^^^^
- ^^^^^
- ^^^^^
- Yes… Less noise… More dev…
I disagree with this proposal.
95% of content in dcl has been touched in some way by the DAO. Decentraland is getting nuked by other platforms right now and cutting content would be not great.
There are no solutions in this proposal to fix broken systems like the voting system, so pausing spending until the future solves nothing.
The conclusion portion of this proposal is a word salad and makes no sense. Protecting funds now to spend later also makes no sense if you don’t fix the problems with how less than acceptable grants get passed.
All of these types of proposals never have an action plan attached.
5 Likes
I just want to echo this and am voting to abstain myself as I don’t want to have a biased vote. Question I have, What good is good technology if no one knows about it? Marketing is 5-15% of the budget for the year, especially for a new business that is direct to consumers. Competition for attention has never been higher, we have to keep telling the narratological story by using the platform in a multitude of ways that show the public. I do hear you and do think we need to see what is working and what is not and adjust accordingly.
I expected this governance proposal to be more detailed. As the leader of the Squad tasked with implementing this change on the DAO platform, I find it challenging to outline the scope and assess the necessary work without specific details (e.g., timelines, budget reallocations, communication strategies, documentation updates, the definition of Facilitation squads, etc.). Therefore, I will abstain and recommend a more detailed follow-up proposal, ideally developed with community input through an All Hands open forum or a dedicated discussion call. Additionally, I have several other points to address:
- Budget Allocation for Platform Category: I agree that the majority of the budget should be dedicated to the Platform category, given its importance to DCL’s future development and the current market value of technical tasks (compared to other fields like art and creativity). However, there’s a knowledge gap among the most active DAO members regarding the necessary codebase, workflow, and infrastructure understanding to make significant platform changes. The only somewhat successful attempt at building an alternative client came from former Foundation employees (the Protocol Squad), highlighting this issue.
- New DCL Explorer: The Foundation recently announced a major overhaul of the DCL Explorer, that is currently in the making, which will supposedly change the architecture completely, and we know very little about it. With the Explorer experience being a major user pain point, allocating the entire DAO budget for the next 10 months under these uncertain conditions seems overly risky.
- Importance of User-Generated Content: DCL thrives on user-generated content. Without creators and users engaging with this content, the platform’s assets (explorer, catalysts, NFTs, MANA) lose their value. It’s crucial to support both community-driven creative work and technical improvements effectively. It’s a flywheel that needs both ends to accelerate.
- Funding and Collaboration: I think that the DAO should fund community-driven creative work through the Grants program and technical projects through the Bidding & Tendering process. We must reevaluate grant categories, enhance the Bidding & Tendering process, collaborate with the Foundation, and empower technically adept community members to propose and implement platform improvements for sure. But please, let’s avoid actions that could further slow down user activity in DCL, especially at a potential tipping point for the crypto and web3 markets.
2 Likes
I expected you to offer suggestion on the poll and draft and not wait for Esteban to endorse this version. We can both be dissapointed together.
Perhaps we should freeze 100% of grant spending and only bid and tender qualified individuals to do that needed work
I totally support spending none of the DAO funds until the foundation has finished their work or is prepared to better communicate with the community about the future of the platform.
Perhaps if the people paid $50-90 to better the grant program actually did something prior to these props being created and Esteban endorsed them, people wouldn’t feel like supporting them.
Maybe in the future, you guys will do better.
Would be great if I didn’t have to spend my FREE time compiling data to make a DAO Price Guide, but no one else is taking a lead in actually making meaningful change, so don’t talk down to me while you sit back and collect $50/hr to do who knows what, not like your grant requests actually have meaningful metrics to judge your work by.
1 Like
Jarod, I would like to know what you would like to spend DAO funds on? Honest question, on what?
I’m curious if you even know how the process would work to have the DAO “improve the platform?” Again, honestly, how do you think that could happen?
Would you like to see DAO members work on the SDK, the Explorer, the dApps, which part of the Decentraland ecosystem do YOU think the DAO can help improve beyond what the Foundation is working on?
The DAO funds 95% of the creations inside Decentraland; so what content would we be “saving” our money for in the future? Will there be a future? What types of content would be worthy of your consideration in the future but not now?
You seem to think this is my idea.
I have simply put forth the prop based on the words and ideas of the community.
Please, feel free to ask any of the countless people who have expressed this desire, I am not here to field questions, I am here to put wasteful spending to an end.
Frankly, I don’t care if the DAO doesn’t spend another dime until the foundation runs dry.
Well, it is your proposal and you think the dao should stop spending. Therefore, there has to be some rationale behind why you put this proposal together. If in some weird way, based on your responses to gino, you think you’re the front guy for the rest of the community, you’re clearly wrong.
You’re not a creator here, you complain a lot. Why are you still here and care what the dao does? I’m actually curious.
I voted to abstain.
Putting something forward for disucussion based on a large amount of community sentiment is not the same thing as fully supporting it.
Frankly, I’ll be perfectly content if no Platform grants pass while the foundation of the governance process and Grant Program are reworked.
Already working on compiling data to make a Grant Price Guide for what the DAO should or shouldn’t be wiling to spend on different ranges of items on grants.
Will probably have to be the one who takes the lead on getting the Voting inequaility addressed since no one else seems up to the task or capabile of getting community support enough on their own ideas to overcome RobL’s vote.
Would be lovely if you or any of the Core Unit making $50/hr would do it, but seems no one gives a shit until the fire is lit directly under their ass.
So, how about you be proactive and do something and spend less time trying to complain about the few people make any effort.
It isn’t my fault you all waited until the last possible moment in a three stage process that spand months to participate in suggesting ideas.
No one asked you to create a pricing guide. And if grant funding is stopped then all your FREE work will be worthless. So please don’t use that as an example of your contribution to the platform.
Also nice language in a dm to me and then block me. Let the adults in the room make decisions while you create more burner accounts because you keep getting banned.
I never was in a hole lol. And you’re severely misunderstood about last slice.
I’ll set the record straight for anyone who’s new or doesn’t understand.
Last slice is a team of people. I made 27% of the revenue last slice did. That’s because I did 27% of the work.
95% of all revenue made went to our team members. 5% to our subscriptions and overhead. The contributions and efforts to the project are reflected as a % of each project budget.
I’ve worked in corporate America and climbed metaphorical ladders. I wanted to approach last slice differently and rewards the “hands on the keyboard” with the majority of the financial gains.
That’s how our TEAM works.