by 0xd4f1cab694c4424c4796549edbb9b489789f4df5 (TudaMoon)
Grant Support Squad brought in a governance proposal and has failed to do their duties according to the enacted governance proposal they have created. DAO Grant Program - Accountability Committee
This governance proposal is for the creation of the Accountability Committee (to be later renamed by DAO to Revocations Committee) and it provides the new procedure that they are supposed to follow.
It states “The Grant Support Squad will request the grantee to respond to the concerns raised and if the concerns continue, they will send the arguments for the Accountability Committee to evaluate the case. This triggers a preventive revocation or a pause to the Vesting Contract.”
The concerns raised are the DAO community member’s concerns. The reason you can come to that conclusion is because in number 1 it talks about Community Members using a form to submit them. There is no definition of concern and since there is no definition, it doesn’t exclude any type of concerns. It would cover all concerns.
That means if there is a continuous concern, even after the information requested from the grantee, it is the duty of the GSS to send the arguments to the Revocations Squad. At that point in time, the vesting contract is paused.
Pause the Vesting Contract of the Grant Support Squad’s current grant until these rules implemented by the DAO are followed by the Grant Support Squad. Their grant will be un-paused by only one (1) voting stage through a governance pre-proposal poll.
- Invalid question/options
Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO
View this proposal on Snapshot
Are you unable to define the existing unaddressed concerns leading to this proposal?
It will be difficult for anyone to vote in support of this proposal since you’ve not made it clear what concerns you think are going unaddressed.
It would seem reasonable to think those concerns would need to be related to the grantee failing to live up to the requirement metrics stated in the Grants Program Framework documentation
Or failing to meet the requirements listed in the proposal creating the Grant Program
If they were referring to those guidelines, it should have been in that governance proposal. Zino is an attorney which is an expert in legal writing. He should know how important that is. We just can’t ASSUME @jar0d
Proposals are like bricks building a wall. New ones are placed on top of existing ones. Unless they expressly say they are undoing a previous one, they don’t just wipe the slate clean and exist in a vacuum.
You don’t need to assume anything.
Nope but you helped me in Discord, Thank you!
This is their full Framework:
They are completely disregarding their own procedure:
This shows that the Continuous Concerns
they were referring to are the ones that were brought up by Formal Complaints.
What concerns are you are upset are going unaddressed?
How are those concerns based on the rules of the grant program?
My argument has to do with procedure not being followed, not about the validity of the continuous concerns.
The Revocations Committee is there to decide if the concerns are valid, NOT the GSS. This procedure does NOT say “Only if the GSS determines the concerns are valid.”
I believe the current wording in the proposal leans toward a one-sided interpretation that could have unintended consequences and triple effects.
This vagueness could pave the way for “grants complaints spam,” where Community members could abuse the system by raising unsubstantiated issues continuously. This scenario would not only waste GSS resources but also unfairly penalize grantees.
The proposal implicitly assumes that any “continuous concerns” raised by the Community should automatically trigger a pause in the vesting contract. However, it doesn’t account for the possibility that the grantee may adequately address these concerns. In cases where the grantee provides logical and satisfactory answers, there is no need for the GSS to put preventive measures in place or pause the grantee’s contract. Implementing such pauses without sufficient evidence could create serious obstacles for grantees and discourage participation in the Grants Program.
I guess that should have been thought about before it was enacted as a final governance proposal. Wording is everything. We cannot assume how it was meant. It must be how it is written.
Implicitly assumes? Are you kidding me? This is new procedure. It doesn’t even mention that the concerns must be valid. There is no prior procedure to this. The procedure for this new process is as written.
@Zino is an expert attorney. However even the best make mistakes. This is a slippery slope if we start assuming things. Does the strategic unit approve of making assumptions for all governance proposals?
I will just leave here a copy of one of the forms I have submitted to GSS about one of the grants.
I have submitted the form also about other (active) grants, but unfortunately I didn’t choose the option to send the form to my email, so I don’t have copy of those, but looks like GSS has chosen to not inform Revocations comittee about issues with those grants.
Did you mention issues with Sandstorm’s last grant in the comments of their new one?
Pause Vesting Contract for Grant Support Squad until…
This proposal is now in status: REJECTED.
- For 1% 40,309 VP (45 votes)
- Against 21% 1,355,662 VP (10 votes)
- Invalid question/options 78% 4,995,286 VP (54 votes)
It’s so disappointing how many people voted “invalid question.”
Obviously, I think it’s a poorly written and poorly reasoned proposal, but the premise of pausing a vesting contract is as valid a proposal as there could be.
Someone should get a grant to teach a damn civics class.