[DAO:8a4aabb] Should every grant update require invoices, receipts or explanations of where the grant funds were sent?

by 0xd4f1cab694c4424c4796549edbb9b489789f4df5 (TudaMoon)

If you vote ‘Yes,’ you agree that every Grant Update should now require invoices, receipts or explanations of where the grant funds were used in order to keep the grant in good standing. If there are funds unaccounted for, fund distribution should pause until the grantee meets the conditions. This does not mean there cannot be some agile approaches to the use of the funds as unexpected circumstances happen. This simply is about being transparent when it comes to showing how the funds were spent. Every update should include all funds used that aren’t accounted for in the previous update, if applicable.

If you vote ‘No,’ the process will remain as is while allowing the potential misuse of DAO grant funds.

Inspiration: [DAO:3e07e00] Sugar Club operation costs 2023 - #17 by SugarClub

  • Yes
  • No
  • Invalid question/options

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

To be honest I cannot fathom how we have been operating by giving out hundreds of thousands of dollars without requiring any form of receipts in return… just “do the right thing” with the money. I can’t think of any business model that would suggest this as a best practice.

I think projects that receive grant funds should provide a specific wallet address, and from that address all bills are paid, with each transaction being clearly itemized. Blockchain transactions can then be cross-referenced from this wallet, and the project would submit receipts monthly to the DAO to maintain transparency. Otherwise I could receive DAO funds, have them go to my personal wallet, buy $10,000 worth of donuts, and it’s impossible to know whether I spent my own money on those donuts or the DAO’s money on those donuts. It would protect individuals as well from any accusations that might come their way, because they could prove in an instant whether they has used DAO funds or not to purchase aforementioned donuts.


i agree in principal to this resolution. However how is this going to be enforced?

If the consensus is that this should be applied, it needs to be standardized to all grants without discrimination. ( and held to the same standard) so that all projects can easily disclose their spending in a easy way.

However i don’t want to see this used as a way to spam attack specific projects and target them with overburden to provide accounting details. while others are left unchecked.


Voting no for now. As grantees we are already required to disclose all the information about the progress and spending to the Grant Support Squad.

So, the issue described in this proposal is already addressed.


@Eibriel That is correct. In reality we are already required to do so, so unless there is a new standard implemented i will go with the existing plan of providing details of the progress and funds used if my grant is approved.

I think Tudamoon wanted me to specifically provide all details of spending, bills receipts ect just because he didn’t like my proposal ( which ironically is one of the most detailed budget proposal i have yet to see in governance…)


Does the DAO appoint the members of this Squad? Also who is on the Squad? Can you share names of all members? Is this Centralized?


AFAIK this is the most recent voting Grant Support Squad


Thanks for solid proposal @Tudamoon . :eyes:

1 Like

I voted yes

We all have the right to see where the funds are going specific.

If you handle with YOUR OWN money, i don’t care how you gonna spend it.

Thank you @Tudamoon for bring this up for a discussion


@nwiz Was this by accident?

1 Like

love the intent but let’s be real here. any “receipt” or “invoice” can be fabricated any “transaction” can be as well. this will prove nothing and only create more “busy work” for whoever you are going to pitch to get paid for this workload after this poll. assuming yourself. this is the start fo the rabbit hole of why it costs $1.2 million to create a bathroom in Los Angeles because a lot of “regulators” and “middle men” pretending to do fake work to “verify” each other.

You want proof of a grant being spent correctly look at the result and outcome of the work to what it pitched in the first place which is what the Grant Support Squad has already been doing with all active grants, plus the community can see for themselves.

You also want proof of the grant’s being spent incorrectly? Look at all the grants that have been revoked so far due to inactivity or miss use of funds.

A better use of everyones time would be for us to build a metaverse that increases DAO revenue. Open to those discussions anytime!


Hey @kingmizomadeit ,can you please tell why invalid ?

I see this as protecting not only the DAO, but the grant recipients. A lot of accusations were made this week. By having a clear and transparent way to communicate where the funds have been spent, we would be able to protect the people being accused of misappropriating funds. Accusations are harmful even when false, and I see this as preventing unnecessary damage in our DAO community.

1 Like

hey @web3nit wrong king.

tagging the wrong person.

Do you have an implementation path? How is the DAO Committee supposed to enact a proposal like that?
I support it in theory, but in practice it’s an invalid proposal as it cannot be implemented

Not yet, can definitely come up with a detailed plan of action when this passes. This is a move to decentralization.

I don’t believe in the word “cannot.” If you know how it cannot be done, we are certainly already 1 step ahead and I thank you for that. Please share the technical obstacles.

I apologize for that. I will try to find the correct person to tag.

Not a problem at all

I don’t think this makes too much sense, when we require a service from a company we don’t ask for all the company internal receipts, we just receive the receipt of the service provided, which is already on the grant proposals, and the DAO as a customer accepts the budget or declines it. Of course, as a customer you can ask the reasoning for a budget to accept it or not, but as it’s said, this is already done before passing the proposal.
Is like if you go to repair your car, you are given a budget, you accept it, and then when you have to pay you ask for all the receipts of the car mechanic, rentals, materials, employees, … and if he doesn’t provide it, you don’t pay; It doesn’t make sense, right? Other matter is if the car is not repaired, in which case of course makes sense to don’t pay the service.

So, that is what I would just ask for, that the delivarables on the proposal are delivered and all preestablished conditions are met.
So, if someone thinks a proposal is not well justified, even accepted and with work delivered, what should be reveiwed is the acceptance process before enacting a grant (for example: Change threshold system to pass a proposal to the difference between YES and NO )

About being transaparents, well, we are as transparent as posible on our updates without entering in too many details to don’t make a TLDR text, others could make more text to make seem there is more work done, if someone is interested we can tell how many “git commits” we have in the code, how many hours and employees (except personal data that is not ours), how many pencils and office materials we bought, but this is optional on our side, we committed to deliver “something” in the accepted proposal, and that’s what is delivered.

In any case, if this proposal is accepted, I think it should never be retroactive, because the proposals are passed under established conditions, I don’t like if 1 part of a deal breaks an agreement between parts without the consent of the other part. It could work however for future proposals.