by 0x0636211443e91468ee3657e1d7faede7059c4843 (Nathan)
This poll intends to gather community feedback on a 100 VP requirement for submitting a Grant Request. Currently, any wallet can request up to $240,000 from the Decentraland DAO with zero investment in the platform. A 100 VP requirement may reduce ‘opportunistic’ Grant Requests and help alleviate voter fatigue.
*100 VP is equivalent to 100 MANA or 1 NAME ; a roughly $60 investment (current rate), of which could also be acquired through delegation.
I do think having some VP is an interesting way to sort of curb a potential bot issue, or even as proof of humanity. Could even show an investment into the platform.
But then I ask, how does this benefit the grants system exactly? To me atm it feels like an issue thats not an issue(yet?). I’d like to see more research on how many grants passed that were submitted from ppl who didn’t hold 100VP or more. And what they created and the outcome. It’s easy to bring this topic up, but without any backing, where is this leading?
And no shade, but I also wonder if there is a conflict to specifically reference names, as you are quite a large name holder, and this could be seen as an issue if names are required?
Begin compensating multiple, different, contributions to DCL and you’ve got my vote. Until then, we are simply prevaricating around the issue of Decentralized Identification. Until we have that, no matter how we slice it, those with the gold make the rules.
We need a proof of humanity to anchor all the other initiatives. Reward VP for time in world to people. Reward VP for number of commits, pull requests, or repos created for devs. Reward VP for number of collectible submission fees from wearable and emote creators. Reward VP for completing certified courses on how to do any of the previous tasks.
This is wonderful idea! I totally support this. I think, in addition to this, I suggest that every proposal should also include a response to the following:
Do you have any plans to self-sustain should your project be given the grant? → This question allows voters to know that project owners should have a way to self sustain and not rely or have any intention to continue rely on grants in order to maintain/sustain the project.
What is the benefit to DCL in the short and long term of this proposal? Can you generate metrics or data to prove there is a form of ROI to the DCL community?
How is this proposal differ from the other similar proposals that have been enacted?
Have you done a market research to determine if this proposal is something that aligns to the needs or wants from the web3 metaverse community?
The DAO has been giving so much without getting back in return. If such proposals in the thousands are passed without any significant returns, then DCL will dry up in less than 5 years.
This is unwarranted, and borderline gate keeping for those with ideas in countries that 100 mana, do not come as easy. It is JUST another barrier to entry, where the process of a proposal already hinders growth. The Grant process already does this by allowing community voting. YOU have the power by voting and voicing your opinion.
This won’t stop someone that can afford a $240K project. They can afford your min 100 VP already. This will only hinder, stop, and deter growth from certain countries.
[Instead] Create a payout schedule rather than lump sum payout, Ask for proof of investment, as the project progresses. Increase oversight of the approved grants. Start a committee where community members can request and see where the projects are investing grant money.
These make a lot of sense and it’s quite enough for me to vote yes… my only worry is that others who would put up valuable proposals would be hindered but we can always aid as a community and co-author some proposals. Thank you for putting forth this idea.