Changing the only part i liked… what a shock
I think this is adding more complexity to something that’s complex by definition and another loophole that I’d prefer to avoid…
The DAO grants program is a funding mechanism for various projects, requiring the community’s approval through voting. It’s important to acknowledge the challenge of the current issue of voting power distribution within the DAO.
This challenge led to creation the Grant Support Squad, a process where this task force evaluates objective concerns, engages with grantees, and escalates cases to the revocations committee, which then makes final decisions.
Something important to mention, the community has already voted on Who should make the decision of revoking grants? And that is why the Revocations Committee was created.
While the proposal to have the community vote on revocation decisions reflects the desire for increased community accountability, it might not be the most effective solution. Adding a community vote after the revocations committee’s decision could introduce complexities and procedural challenges, leading to delays and confusion.
Furthermore, there’s a risk of duplicating efforts, as the committee’s evaluation already represents a comprehensive review process.
However, the community’s role in maintaining accountability remains. Encouraging community members to raise objective concerns and provide comments on project updates, like the new feature releases by the Governance Squad, remains a robust mechanism for overwatching.
This approach ensures that projects are consistently monitored, aligning with their intended goals and what the community funded.
This decentralized monitoring is vital for the health and success of the grants program.
Last but not least, going through the governance process to revoke a grant can be used as a community sentiment about the project under watch, but the only Committee with the authority to request revoke the vesting contract of a Grant, is the Revocations Committee such Article 8 of the Revocations Committee Framework says.
In summary, while the proposed community vote after the revocations committee’s decision is well-intentioned, it may introduce inefficiencies and unnecessary complexities. Instead, promoting ongoing community engagement through open dialogue, objective concerns, and continuous project monitoring enhances the program’s accountability and transparency.
Would the contract be paused if the grant is in favor of being revoked by the Revocations Committee? Otherwise I feel asking for community final approval is giving them more time to remove funds from the vesting contract?
Decentralization refers to a system where control, decision-making, and authority are distributed across a network of participants rather than being concentrated in a single entity or central authority. The grant has been subject to community voting, and it’s only fair that the community retains the ability to vote on the final decision as well.
If the vesting contract is paused, whats the problem to wait for a community decision? grantee wont have the funds if he doesn’t accomplish his part of the deal.
We should have the appropriate people to design and develop the process and contracts. The centralized, subjective and humanized decision have flaws, they can ignore the terms and conditions and make own interpretations, also there is a lot of space for corruption and interest. I prefer to rely the final decission to the DAO and to the code in contract while a grant contract is paused. The revocation committee / gss can still review the cases and activate the process.
Now, reviewing previous cases, e.g. some was revoked because wrong category… then I think, in any case why don’t we have a grant committee that reviews the proposal before enacting and not after? Why the grant was enacted if it was in a wrong category? Maybe the revocation committee is unnecessary.
“Let the community decide” was literally an option on the first proposal that lead to the creation of the new committee.
Perhaps those of you speaking on the subject now should do some research and understand what the COMMUNITY voted for.
Acting as if this committee was invented without respecting a decentralized process is dishonest. While I never expect honesty from MrD, I do expect better from the rest of you.
Should the Community Be the Final Arbiter in Grants Revocation Decisions ?
This proposal is now in status: REJECTED.
- Yes 46% 7,257,022 VP (42 votes)
- No 53% 8,328,407 VP (64 votes)
- Abstain 1% 774 VP (6 votes)
We don’t have that kind of procedure because it would be centralized decisions.
However, I agree that maybe we can think of something more automatic, such as, if you submitted under x category, complete this, and if it is wrong, the vesting contract will not be enacted.
That kind of development is a long shot, so we need to trust in people for now (voted by the Community)