[DAO:77b779d] Formal Pathway for DAO Request for Information (RFI) from the Foundation

by 0x5b5cc427c1d81db4f94de4d51d85ce122d63e244 (Fehz)

Linked Draft Proposal

Formal Pathway for DAO Request for Information (RFI) from the Foundation


This proposal outlines a process to implement a formal pathway for the DAO to issue a “request for information” (RFI) from the Decentraland Foundation.


The RFI process between Decentraland DAO and the Decentraland Foundation is designed to increase communication and collaboration between both entities. The RFI process will create a mechanism for the DAO to issue a formal request for information from the Foundation within a series of defined categories, which would require a formal statement from the Foundation in response. While the responses will be non-binding, this process will allow for the DAO to more efficiently communicate its, and help alleviate information asymmetry between the two core entities of the Decentraland ecosystem.


Decentraland is a progressively decentralizing ecosystem, managed by two core stakeholders: the Decentraland DAO and the Decentraland Foundation. While both of these entities are themselves made up of a diverse and multi-interested group of stakeholders, a cooperative and structured institutional relationship between the DAO and the Foundation is beneficial, if not necessary to the success of our metaversal “way of life.”

The most important proposal to date outlining a formal relationship between the DAO and the Foundation was recently passed as a Binding Governance Proposal, delegating responsibility for determining and implementing the “reference client roadmap” to the Decentraland Foundation.”

In the reference client proposal, the Decentraland Foundation notes the following key point: “The project is currently in a state of asymmetry in terms of context/resources/contributions between the Foundation and the community.”


This proposal aims to establish a pathway for the DAO to issue a “Request for Information” (RFI) from the Decentraland Foundation via the DAO’s governance dApp and/or other complementary tools. A DAO RFI can be on any topic of interest or concern, and if passed, will require a formal statement of response from the Decentraland Foundation. While any response to an RFI will be non-binding, this is an important mechanism for the DAO to communicate its interests and alleviate information “asymmetry” between the Foundation and the Community.

  1. General Guidelines - An RFI can be useful when there is necessary information which you do not currently have access to. An RFI can be about the “what”, “why” and/or “how” of a specific topic. It is highly recommended to limit the request and to be specific about what information is being requested in order to optimize the document for brevity, as this will allow the Foundation to read and digest the information in less time without omitting key data points.
  2. Restraints - There may be certain topics that the Foundation is not willing or able to disclose in detail, and may provide only high-level answers or limited information. This includes the following:
    1. Revealing personal information about contractors and users.
    2. Details about contractor’s compensation and other contract details.
    3. Organizational chart of the Foundation and internal functioning.
    4. Legal issues related to the legal structure.
  3. Liaison (DAO-Foundation)- DAO Facilitation Squad will serve as an Entries & Support Desk (ESD) to organize, prioritize, forward the questionnaires, and reach out to the Foundation technical areas. Meaning that the ESD will be responsible for managing a pipeline for all RFI, help with their writing and for verifying the feasibility of getting answers.
  4. Channel & Functioning:
    1. The main channel for submitting RFIs and getting responses will be a Category created on the Forum for setting up the ESD.
    2. Each thread created within the RFI Category will remain open for a continuous period of 45 days for community members to submit their questions through the template form. The ESD Facilitator will moderate these threads and will possess the authority to remove posts that are not relevant to the RFI form.
    3. The questions submitted by the community will be ranked based on the number of votes/likes received within a period of 15 days after the first stage is closed. This ranking will determine the priority of the questions/topics for the community, and the questions with the most votes/likes will be forwarded to the Foundation.
    4. Once the current round of submissions is complete, another round will be opened to allow community members to pose their questions.
    5. The process must allow sufficient time for responses and provide an appropriate deadline for the Decentraland Foundation to respond to the RFIs. As a standard, the Foundation will have a 45 days period to send a response, considering the necessary time to gather and compile all relevant information and documentation.
    6. Time Extensions: If the Foundation considers that the posed questions are complex or require extensive research or analysis, will be able to ask for a time extension.
    7. Publishing: The response will be public and available for everyone through official channels such as the Governance dApp, social media, and/or other communication channels and complementary apps.


The RFI procedure will allow the community to access information that they may not have had access to previously, increasing transparency between the Decentraland Foundation and the DAO by providing a concrete mechanism and pathway. With the expressed timelines, the community will have 6 RFI rounds every year. The RFI procedure will also serve as a complementary tool to the AMA Sessions.

Implementation Pathways

  1. Create a dedicated category on the Decentraland Forum for submitting RFIs and getting responses.

  2. Give administrator permissions to the Facilitation Squad to manage the Forum category.

  3. Set up a space to ensure that the responses to the RFIs are made public and available to everyone through the dApp or complementary tools.


The proposed RFI process aims to establish a cooperative and structured institutional relationship between the DAO and the Foundation, benefiting the success of Decentraland’s metaverse. The process will enable the DAO to communicate its interests, alleviate information asymmetry, and allow the Foundation to respond to community concerns and suggestions in a transparent and accountable manner.

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

Follow ups
The requestant may, if necessary, seek additional clarification or information on specific topics or questions from the Decentraland Foundation by submitting another RFI form and referencing the previous Q&A. This option will be available for a duration of three days, after which the requestant will be required to initiate a new RFI process.

Closing & Tracking

  1. When a questionnaire has been responded and the period for submitting follow ups has come to an end, the ESD will consider the questionnaire as closed.
  2. ESD Facilitator will assign a number to each issued RFI and keep track of the pipeline by following up if necessary. A specific space within the dApp and/or complementary apps will be set up for these purposes.


  1. Title
  2. Name of requester/Address (optional)
  3. Categories (Features | Roadmap | Technical | Marketing | Events | Metrics | Platform | Other)
  4. Introduction: Provide an introduction that explains the purpose and scope of the RFI. This can help the reader understand the context and importance of the questions being asked.
  5. General questions: Include some general questions that provide background information and context for the specific topics being addressed in the RFI.
  6. Specific questions: Include specific questions that address the topics or issues that you want to explore in greater detail. These questions should be clear, concise, and relevant to the purpose and scope of the RFI.
  7. Supporting documentation: Provide supporting documentation or examples that help clarify or support the questions being asked (screenshots, diagrams, or other visual aids that help illustrate).

I’d vote against this.

While I agree that there’s room for improvement in how the Foundation communicates, this suggestion seems to add red tape to instances of something that hasn’t ever happened yet. What if we try with a few of these requests through this forum first?

Hi @esteban!

Thanks for your feedback.This could bring clarity since we’ve considered it internally at early stages.

We thought that for the sake of transparency, a formal RFI procedure could provide clear structure, guidelines, and above all, set expectations for both community members and the Foundation. By outlining the process, requirements, deadlines, submission channels, and response times, we aim to ensure that all parties understand how to participate and what to expect of the process.

IMO, opting for an informal approach could lead to complications and difficulties for all parties involved and become more a headache than a tool to foster transparency.

With all that said, if this passes and it doesn’t fulfill expectations, we’ll for sure revisit the process and modify it based on community feedback.

I’m not saying this won’t be useful, I would just like to see how a first attempt at doing this would look like without going through the DAO. The Foundation is not bound by DAO governance proposals AFAIK anyways :man_shrugging:

Edit: To clarify what I’m saying, is there anything that this process would cover that is not already being answered by the Foundation AMAs? Those happen regularly and they provide a lot of clarity with little administrative burden

I totally get your point! We’ve explored different options and just thought that this approach will be the best way to do it, being a way for organizing the DAO and the setting up of a pipeline for the RFIs. Again, with clear guidelines to set expectations between the involved parties.

I think we did mention that this is intended to be a complementary tool and an extension for the AMA sessions. While AMA sessions have a real-time format, the RFI procedure allows an structured and documented approach, so inquiries could be captured and addressed in a comprehensive manner.

This also could help the community in the following cases:

  1. Members who weren’t able to participate in a specific AMA session.
  2. Follow-up or in-depth questions.
  3. Specific questions that couldn’t be responded during the session due to out of scope limitations.

So, for all that cases, inquiries could still be addressed through the RFI process.

The AMA sessions have pre-submitted questions and are recorded.

I guess that my point is, can the community list ten instances of examples of RFI questions that you would submit TODAY that aren’t being answered by the Foundation?

I just don’t see the problem as clearly as you. And the proposals don’t go into any detail trying to explain the problem, just repeating “asymmetry of information” multiple times.

I would say that there’s a wide range of possibilities when you mention the “improvement in how the Foundation communicates”. How this problem can be addressed is part of the discussion: a one-way approach in which the DAO has nothing to do but being passive is what has been signaled as the problem.

So, the problem, from our perspective, isn’t only the assymetry of information but also the lack of other channels and instances to get in-depth responses. Having another instance besides the synchronous session, could increase the back and forth and become a great opportunity for documenting on both ends in a standardized format.

To be honest, I don’t know if there are ten instances, but the defined categories have been taken from community signaling and the expressing need of having other channels besides the AMAs -far from being questioned- in the Discord, in proposals and different forum posts.

Personally, I could imagine RFIs asking about technical details (technology, protocols, etc), deep dives into the roadmap/manifesto, timelines for specific feature releases, and follow ups on specific implementations.

I really hope this clarifies more our point of view and the reasoning behind this proposal.

Thanks again for your questions!

Formal Pathway for DAO Request for Information (RFI) from the Foundation

This proposal is now in status: PASSED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes 88% 6,642,386 VP (99 votes)
  • No 6% 540,139 VP (2 votes)
  • Abstain 6% 537,166 VP (3 votes)

Formal Pathway for DAO Request for Information (RFI) from the Foundation

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