[DAO:77fe338] Should the Community Be the Final Arbiter in Grants Revocation Decisions?

Governance
1

by 0x247e0896706bb09245549e476257a0a1129db418 (StrategicUnit)

Linked Pre-Proposal

Should the Community Be the Final Arbiter in Grants Revocation Decisions ?

Summary

This proposal seeks to determine whether the Decentraland Community should have the final say in the revocation of Grants through the DAO governance process, thereby aligning the decision-making process with the principle of decentralization.

Abstract

This proposal emphasizes the existing procedure where the Grant Support Squad and Revocations Committee can initiate a preventive pause or revocation of the Grant Vesting Contract when potential concerns are raised. However, this proposal suggests an enhancement to this process: the final decision on the revocation of the Grant Vesting Contract would be subject to the outcome of a Community vote. If the Community vote is in favor of the Grantee and against the revocation, the Grant Vesting Contract won’t be revoked. In such a case, any preventive pause that had been initiated would be lifted and the Grant Vesting Contract along with its payments would be continued, and vice versa.

Motivation

The Decentraland DAO is the decision-making tool for MANA, NAMES and LAND holders in Decentraland’s virtual world. The DAO’s Grants Program is one of the best vehicles to help grow the Decentraland ecosystem and must be aligned with the main spirit of
Decentraland - Decentralization. Currently, the revocation of Grants is done by the Revocations Committee, which may not fully reflect the Community’s will. This proposal suggests that while the Revocations Committee should continue to exist and make the initial decision on whether a grant should be revoked, the final decision should rest with the Community, providing a safeguard mechanism to override the Committee’s decision if necessary. Grants revocation decisions should not be delegated to a small group of individuals, instead, they should be resolved through the DAO’s governance process, which was designed as a legitimate tool to mirror the Community’s sentiments.

Specification

For a detailed overview of the proposed amendments, please refer to the Complete Specification.

These amendments are intended for integration into the current Revocations Committee Framework.

Conclusion

By allowing the Community to override the decisions of the Revocations Committee through the DAO governance process, we can ensure that the Grants Program remains a true reflection of the Community’s desires and needs. The Revocations Committee will still play a crucial role in evaluating cases and making initial decisions, but also that the Community has a say. It strikes a balance between the need for specialized decision-making and the principle of decentralization.This proposal seeks to enhance the grant revocation process by aligning it with governance process and equip the Community with a clear protocol for handling relevant cases, thereby making procedure simpler and optimizing time.

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

2

Current Grants revocation process.

P.S. The Revocations Committee was previously known as the Accountability Committee.

R1
R1990Ă—856 151 KB

R2
R21002Ă—672 42.3 KB

3

Proposed amendments for integration into the current Revocations Committee Framework (grants revocation process).

R5
R51332Ă—1048 106 KB

4

My thoughts on this topic:

5

As much as I like the idea of more community accountability, there doesn’t seem to be enough decentralization for this to be possible, often, grants are passing in the first place due to large amounts of VP by teams involved, the revocation committee should have the right to sufficiently end grants that are not meeting the criteria as voted in for.

Having the community vote will muddy the waters of revocation, and would be much better used to remove revocation committee members who are not acting in the best interest instead of requiring constant active political involvement.

6

Why does it seem like the community only gets to vote on restoring revoked funds and not on if the grant should be revoked in the first place?

7

Hey, it works in both directions.

8

I’m all in favor to decentralize everything this sounds like a solid idea, I hope the community keeps in mind that we have to achieve decentralization in small steps.

1 Like
9

This is literally a step backward from what was just voted into place by the community very recently.

10

I know individuals may think it’s excessive, but I think it a great way to ensure decentralized decisions by having the community involved at the very end.

2 Likes
11

A lot of this goes over my head. I know it is cuz I not that smart but also I think don’t we over complicate things to much? Like honest question why dont we just have the vesting on an escrow type system where portions of the money is released when the mile stones are achieved?

Instead we legit now have a process where 1. vote for a grant to pass 2. vote people n a team to over see the grants 3. vote differnt staff in at differnt times 4. vote on an approval of a revocation.

I may be missing something but wouldn’t it be more efficient to have just a performance escrow system?

12

I don’t see why we shouldn’t have a complementary system to the revocation committee, I think this proposal obviously makes Decentraland more decentralized and I don’t understand the reason for voting no to this.

2 Likes
13

I think this is a good idea, and I think it is already the case now. As far as I know, the governance proposal can override the decision made by the revocation committee, but let’s hear some confirmation from @HPrivakos.

1 Like
14

Hi @MetaDogeisme , thanks for the feedback. Indeed, gov prop can override it. This initiative aims to streamline the grants revocation process, making it more efficient, while aligning it with the existing opportunities within the governance process.

15

cool, no problem at all!

1 Like
16

I believe that if the community voted for a proposal to pass, they should have a voice before a proposal is revoked.

Having the community component to this process will avoid one centralized smaller unit/group of people make a decision that most of the community may not agree with.

It also ensures that the community can solidify a decision for revocation. I believe it works well both ways.

As such, I’m in agreement with this proposed change in our current process.

17

Yes, by asking for a new grant ahah
You could also do a governance proposal, but it takes longer and needs more VP, so better just ask for a new grant

1 Like
18

Voting No,
I don’t feel the DAO is currently healthy enough to allow for this loops on the decision process.

If we could make this kind of decisions wouldn’t be a Revocations Committee in the first place.

Lets talk again if this change to the DAO is successful.

3 Likes
19

Hi @web3nit. I’ve taken another pass at your draft proposal and have a thought/recommendation.

1
11406Ă—508 203 KB

I believe the highlighted section may overcomplicate things. Instead of having the 6M VP plus (+) reaching a 60% majority of the votes threshold, I believe we can simply stick to the majority vote like it’s currently done in the grant/governance proposal process. This will ensure alignment across the platform. Instead, the formula can look like this:

6M VP plus (+) an overall majority of the votes threshold

1 Like
20

Thanks for feedback. Agree, that make sense, we can upgrade it in gov proposal if this passes.

2 Likes