[DAO:8971a77] Should we remove the Strategic Unit and prevent $32k in DAO funds from being spent?

I predicted the forum spam to fill the first five messages as quickly as possible so people have to click “show more” on the governance page =)

Yes, because it was a poll gauging interests, the draft and governance proposals were useless, especially if it’s just to say “I’ll do it” while it was already done by someone else.

Misleading. Strategic Unit: $5,333 (in a couple days) (this amount does not include 26,667$ still to be vested)


The Decentraland DAO is the decision-making tool for MANA, NAMES and LAND holders in Decentraland’s virtual world. Through votes in the DAO, the Community can have a say in important aspects of the virtual world, including grants, POIs, Names, policies, catalyst nodes, LAND and Estate smart contracts, and any other issues the Community deems relevant.

For example, the Pre-Proposal Poll was created to gauge Community sentiment, and no one can take away my right to post DAO proposals or to seek the Community’s opinion. If you disagree with my poll, feel free to vote ‘no’. These proposals are my personal initiative. I care about LAND owners, as LAND is the heart of Decentraland IMO. I also believe that the revocation process for Grants should involve the Community in making the final decision. By the way, I’ve always been for decentralization (look at the screens).

Regarding the LAND proposal, similar topics were discussed in 2019 and 2020. There’s no reason I can’t seek the Community’s opinion on it in 2023! Also, it’s worth noting that you don’t represent the entire DAO. There are Community members who find value in my polls and consider them interesting topics for discussion, as evidenced by the comments on the Land Poll, for example.






I wrote as of today. This is your personal opinion with which I do not agree, If you don’t like it - vote “NO”.

It’s not personal opinion, it’s facts.
It’s not something the DAO Committee can enact, therefore this governance proposal is useless, like jar0d ban or features requests proposals.
Crazy that a Core Unit, Strategic Unit team member doesn’t know that.
I already voted Abstain on it because it’s invalid.

1 Like

DAO Committee shouldn’t. Please look carefully at Implementation Pathways, I think you again missed the point.

And please read what is Governance Proposal.

Some proposals are not as simple as adding or removing an item from a list, they require community signaling, discussions and implementation paths. Those proposals should be submitted thorugh a three-stage governance process that starts with a poll and ends with a binding proposal.

The voting process includes three steps: a Pre-Proposal Poll, a Draft Proposal, and a Governance Proposal. Each tier will have progressively increasing submission and passage thresholds to ensure important governance decisions are made by a representative majority (based on Voting Power). Each step must reach the defined VP threshold to be promoted to the next one.


Along with being generally unfit for the position, LL has consistently demonstrated themselves to be a person of a duplicitous nature. There are very few people who have ever collaborated or worked closely with LL who have something nice to say about them over a time frame of any reasonable length.

LL has spent more time trying to strategically keep this grant then he has how to help the dao do anything.

1 Like

Cmon man you are mad because I voted “No” on your grant. Rethink your behavior, stop attacking Community members and me personally and I will reconsider my decision.

You vote on grants solely based on the person submitting it rather than on the content of the grant itself?


as someone who is exactly the kind of person you’re talking about, warning others to not “get lordliked” is a civic duty

ZESTYBEAM is aware of the ongoing war and dangerous conditions in Ukraine. Despite this, he still wishes for me to return there. I find this to be not just culturally insensitive but a blatant disregard for my safety, bordering on a wish for my harm or even death.

Offtopic. Is this some way connected with your grant?

Oh here is another member that constantly harasses someone including me and not only.

jail != death, but keep pushing that false narrative since you’ve got nothing else. maybe you can kiss chris between the cheeks and get me muted again. until then, cry harder.

Hey, Lordy, I usually go after scamers, bruh. <3

1 Like

I don’t care if anyone votes No on things they don’t believe in.

I do wonder why you would have votes Yes for my Grant until the final 30 minutes when it reached a majority of Yes votes, then switch to Abstain for 10 minutes, until I once again reached a majority of Yes votes and then switched to No.

I can’t personally think of a reason where a person of integrity would change their votes in such a way over the closing minutes of a grant proposal.

And while that is certainly among the reasons I don’t consider you to be an intellectually honest person acting in the best interest of anyone other than yourself, it is certainly not the full extant of reasons you have demonstrated to be untrustworthy.

Are there any existing members of a DAO core team willing to speak up on your behalf and say that we are mistaken and you aren’t just trying to take credit for the work others have already done?

I don’t need the DAO core team to speak up on my behalf. I am a Decentraland DAO Delegate -Community servant. The decisions of the DAO will speak on my behalf, and I will respect them no matter what they may be.

Someone with some insight into your actual ability to plan “strategically” would be nice.

The Peter principle is a concept in management developed by Laurence J. Peter which observes that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to “a level of respective incompetence”: employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another.

It’s okay to acknowledge that maybe this job isn’t best suited to you at this time.


I think if you listen to the strategic facilitation session recordings, it is clear Fede is the one bringing strategic value and doing most of the work…They should be on the youtube channel, and I believe you’ve been at many of them. But if you watch the first 10 minutes of this session, I think it’s very clear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l35eMKaifhU

From the beginning the Strategic Unit Grant felt more like an attempt to get a specific representative into a core unit position, rather than bringing strategic value to the DAO, particularly as it significantly overlapped with existing roles and responsibilities of the Facilitation Squad, and was not coordinated in anyway, where duplicated work could have been avoided. I believe the Unit takes credit for work that others do or are doing, and that there has been very little added strategic value from this squad.

In fact, before I pushed back on it, the proposal that is being used now as the fait acompli for the squads existence, to maintain an updated DAO Organization chart, was delegated to every other core unit except the Strategic Unit. The only thing being put forward by the Strategic Unit was the proposal itself. And the facilitation squad was being asked to do research for the chart, write the text, create the visuals, the governance squad to update the website, and the facilitation squad to keep it updated. It was only after I diplomatically suggested that as the person making the proposal, the Strategic Unit, should probably have some role in implementing it, rather than calling on every other strategic unit to do all the work for them. Interesting how that is now a central piece of the policy to maintain accountability for the DAO…

That said, I disagree with this pathway, and see this as only a sanction, as I have in other instances where is not an established governance power. If this passes the grant should be escalated by the GSS to the revocations committee and go through the proper procedure, and given the due process as it has been established.

If we are going to establish a second pathway to send Grants to the Revocations Committee, then we should also consider constituting it through a Governance Proposal, and assess the impacts and implementation pathways in the process.