[DAO:8d89567] Governance Squad 1H2023 Renewal

by 0x511a22cdd2c4ee8357bb02df2578037ffe8a4d8d (ginoct)

Should the following Tier 6: up to $240,000 USD, 6 months vesting (1 month cliff) grant in the Platform Contributor category be approved?

Abstract

Renew and expand the previously passed Grant to fund the team responsible for maintaining and improving the DAO Governance dApp.

Previous Grants proposals here (1H 2022) and here (2H 2022)

Grant size

179,360 USD

Beneficiary address

0x3bf800b6F5c987b3738432068f789b7d131F1698

Email address

gino@decentraland.org

Description

The DAO Governance Squad has been created in January 2022 as a result of a Community Grant given by the Decentraland DAO. From its inception, it has grown into a fully-featured product development team working in an open and agile way, focused on improving the capabilities of the main governance platform of the Decentraland DAO, the Governance dApp, and its ecosystem.

In the last 5 months (There is 1 month left in the current Grant period) it has achieved:

Engagement

  • New Decentraland DAO Homepage
  • Grants Dashboard
  • New User Profile
  • Sentiment Survey for Grants (WIP, to be shipped by mid-December)

Community Building Tools

  • Automatic Governance notifications on Discord (WIP, to be shipped by mid-December)

Operations & Developer Experience

  • Better testing infrastructure
  • Improvements to our deploy pipeline and partial decoupling from Decentraland Foundation infrastructure
  • Snapshot Integration Updates
  • Improving development documentation on the Github repository
  • Multiple Improvements and Bugfixes - For an in-depth view please check our Github repo

Out of our original scope: We partnered with the Partners Registry Squad to build the v0 of the Verified Partners page.

During this period we also worked on ensuring the metrics we were using to determine the impact of our work were well-tracked and easily available for the team. We are happy to announce that our north-star metric, VP participating per proposal, grew 50% from last semester and 375% year over year.

To see the previously shipped initiatives check the previous Grant request proposal here. You can also see the demos we recorded here. Check the changelog here and the monthly updates on the proposal here.

Check the Transparency Dashboard here and the Governance homepage to see some key metrics of the DAO operations and community engagement.

This Grant proposal aims to continue this development path taking into account the needs of the Decentraland DAO community and its multiple stakeholders for the upcoming 6 months. A detailed view of the objectives can be found in the Roadmap and Milestones section of this proposal.

Specification

This grant will set up a budget to run this team for the next 6 months. This grant could be extended upon a further decision of the DAO if the grant succeeds in its objectives. The DAO Governance Squad has been set up as a Panama sole-purpose, Non-for-Profit Foundation. The costs associated with maintaining the foundation are included in this Grant. The same Conditions of the Grant detailed in the original founding proposal still apply.

The grant will be provided as a vesting contract of stablecoins assigned to a 2-out-of-3 signatures wallet. The key holders are the same as the previous grant.

Personnel

The proposed team for the DAO Governance Squad is the following:

Note: This is the current team structure, we’re not planning to add new team members in this grant period.

Time Investment: ~520 monthly hours. (8% workload increase from previous grant term)

Budget: $29,893 USD per month or a total of $179,360 USD.

This budget includes:

  • Team compensation: $161,360
  • Operational expenses: $6,000
  • Travel expenses for an industry-related event attendance: $12,000
    • Check Devcon Bogotá report here.

Financial report of the previous Grant here.

Roadmap and milestones

Our north star remains the same: Continue improving the mechanisms for which the DAO Community engages with the governance process to lower the friction and increase the quality and frequency of contributions to the DAO. Those contributions could take the form of participation in proposal voting and discussion, engagement with grants or ongoing projects, and discussions in working groups or public spaces such as Discord and the Forum.

We will know that we’re building the right things right if we see:

  • :arrow_up: # of wallets/users participating in the DAO (Voting, creating, or commenting)
  • :arrow_up: % of in-world users participating in the DAO
  • :arrow_up: % of median VP participating per proposal
  • :arrow_up: % of delegated VP in circulation

To see a detailed breakdown of proposed initiatives please click here. The roadmap is subject to change based on community feedback and needs.

The team will follow agile development practices to ensure a lean implementation of DAO governance requirements and continuous improvement of such features. The team will provide updates to the community, gather feedback and answer questions at the open DAO Town Hall meetings and Discord server. Monthly Demo recordings will be provided as well.

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

On a User’s profile for their voting history, can we get a total percentage of how many proposals a specific user voted on that have been revoked or had grant proposals in bad standing? I think this is an important metric.

1 Like

lol how the f is it a voters responsibility if the team dont deliver for xyz reason. So you can come back later and say but you voted for this person and that team didnt meet this. Petty…

1 Like

I feel like if the voter does their due diligence, for the most part this will be a lower rate so realistically it shouldn’t matter. However, if you have a bad actor who is purposely voting on things that have been draining the DAO and is malicious, then theirs will most likely be a lot higher. I think this is important.

Actually I am adding this paragraph in at a later time. I think it is extremely relevant because normally when we have Monarchs, or oligarchs, we have people who are making decisions for us. The reason that works is because we hold them accountable. We took away centralization, so now we must remain accountable for the same responsibility we used to delegate to others.

You specifically signaled out grants that fail. There is little reason that information is beneficial except to say ah you bet on bad people or to look down on others or cast a shadow. Your higher then tho image is showing clear intentions on this post. " can we get a total percentage of how many proposals a specific user voted on that have been revoked" your own words. If a person votes on a proposal and it doesnt go anywhere and gets revoked it literally has no bearing. Thats on the team that got the grant not the voters. They vote to give people a chance. The dao has evolved. The dao over sight committee yanks the funds now if a team dont complete tasks. To have this data on another user is only for you to look at some ones track record and stick your nose up. The only people accountable in that situation is the team/ individual got the grant and oversight committee. Almost every post your on you claim to want to defend the dao but come across wanting shift malice on other members. Or are you so confident with that data you could conclude mens rea and actus reus on each voter who does that. Get real.

1 Like

I don’t think that would be a great idea because even if the voter does, as you said, their due diligence, they are not responsible for how others behave or perform. What we are thinking is to make more visible that a Grant has been revoked (In their vesting contract, in the Grants dashboard and in the Grantees profile)

1 Like

And, to add to what @TheCryptoTengu is saying: Revocation doesn’t equal bad. A grant can be revoked because the team disbanded, because they found a technical blocker that’s not on their side, or even because they couldn’t create a legal entity to receive the funds.

3 Likes

Great work so far. The user profiles and history features are very useful. It could be improved i think though if you added a voter directory that is searchable? Right now the only way ive found to search is pasting an eth address into the url.

Also it would be cool if we had an interface like https://cryptobubbles.net/ to visualize the active voting wallets in the space and what thier relative VP is.

1 Like

@TheCryptoTengu @ginoct
Actually if you want this DAO system to work, it’s extremely important that the community members who vote are responsible for those they voted for. Every voter has now gained the same responsibilities as your everyday real world politician. Politicians get scrutinized all the time on the policy they vote on, while they have little to no control if it is fulfilled. This is about adding another metric that is critical to further the DAO. If we don’t do this and we continue to vote in poor performers then it is clear that the judgment of those who voted on them are poor. I think that’s very important to understand. However, the more you vote on good projects, 1 failed project is not going to bring your numbers down. However if over 50% of the projects you helped pass fail, then yes I think it’s is definitely worth noting. Especially if we are delegating votes.

If you vote on good projects and have good judgement, what is your worry?

1 Like

Revocation after receiving funds is bad. It drains the DAO. Unless the funds are returned.

I appreciate all of your opinions. Metrics are data, and no one is required to use them for anything, however if you both don’t believe the decision makers of this DAO shouldn’t be held accountable, who should be? The projects that come and go?

1 Like

Dude who comes to dao cries all the time and is never at any party or event. Lets hold you to the basic standards of todays DCL. Want to go off metrics and propose bs that leads to finger pointing and cancel culture. Ill kick the fn door open in first. Lets cancel people making 17 min youtube videos who cant even get all the facts right and present them as truth. Who sound like a non sure pacifist whose information he isnt sure of cause he wasnt correct in. Whose presentation wouldnt pass the most basic of educated jurors. Cause they know how to read contracts and block transactions. Lets talk about the non performing event hosting individual so worried what everyone else is doing but isnt doing jack for the community on a bigger front except come to propose to follow everyone elses track record. The dude who wants to save the dao and be the so called hero but didnt even know who the first few ppl were to call out whale manipulation. Your a joke sir good fn day.

1 Like

Thank you for you highly regarded opinion of me. I didn’t know that you consider me to be the hero here. However, I know you are attempting to move the topic to make this personal. Nice try.

Let’s stick to the policy here. Is this about policy for you or about attacking me? With that being said, let’s keep this on topic.

@TheCryptoTengu would you mind sharing your opinions on this policy?

I personally think the ‘accountability’ discussion between DAO members it’s valid and it’s worth exploring and going further on it.

But on the other hand, and considering that right now if you enter the profiles you can access the information that you’re mentioning, there’s no specific need to point users ‘failures’, because that will lead inevitably to label people as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ depending on their preferences, and that’s also the way you may create pariahs.

Another possible main outcome that comes to my mind, may be discouraging the engagement and participation and also leading some voters to choose the option that has a broader support or the one that they think will “succeed” for a matter of ‘status’, and not the one that’s actually their own preference.

First of all thanks for the contributions, second, please let’s stay on topic and disagree respectfully without taunting.

@Tudamoon I get your point that DAO voters are like real-world politicians, but with the difference that voting is not their job, they are not paid to do that work. If we had a body of delegates (Read this: Paying People to Participate in Governance - a16z crypto or see how MakerDAO recognized delegates or ENS delegates system work) I would agree that we should somehow evaluate them for their “voting performance”.
Regarding revocations, with the Grants oversee mechanisms we have in place right now, I would rather have a more decentralized system to grant money (Like we have right now) without committees deciding who gets what and a bit more centralized approach to revoke grants efficiently (Like how the Grants Support Squad is currently operating or their proposal to form a committee for revocations). Grantees have a 1-month cliff vesting and then they get the money vested periodically, so if they don’t deliver value in the first two months, their Grants could be revocated with just 1 month of money released in their wallets. The rest of the money will be back to the DAO treasury.

@ile Thanks for your kind words, you’re an amazing example of how to collaborate and engage in this community. Always helping others without criticizing but saying the right things when they’re needed. I like both ideas, we had the members directory on our radar already :slight_smile:

1 Like


Voting isn’t their job, I would agree with that. There’s a big issue with this as there is no incentive to take time to really look into who they are voting for. This is a problem because they don’t have incentive to “care about their vote.” My solution is to deter voters who have poor judgment or who don’t have the time to care about who they are voting for.

There’s a lot of community members overlooking the fact that these bad actors deter voter participation. When the system seems rigged or unfair, people will get discouraged, most of which I believe are those who want a fair system. Those voters who will be discouraged will be those who care and are quality voters. Meanwhile if we are worried about incentivizing people to care, then why are we allowing these members to be deterred from voting? Instead we need to make sure the system is fair and we should only be deterring those who vote in bad actors. Quality over Quantity.

I do think there is a moral obligation for a community member to alert those who are not aware of the bad actors. But yet, we have people who attack those who make a 17 minute long video on sharing information to better inform their community of such.

imagine a dude who cant properly read transactions on the block and minting details crusading about dao votes. :rofl: call that and attack if you want. Im clarify my issue using the kiss method. Take the circle your in and focus. Now widen another circle around it and imagine its future influence based on societal actions. X votes on Y team. Y team does something extraordinarily fd up or fails in public opinion. All the Z jihad on X for voting for Y. Y and X get canceled yet all X did was vote to give team Y a chance. They knew not what Y would do. X also has alot of investment/time/ influence in platform XYZ are all involved in. He bails future investors players bail due to toxic culture. Thats the fn door your kicking in. With todays cancel culture and other bs dont know how you cant fn see this and keep raging on the same issue. I support @ginoct

Great stuff guys. I see plans to unite the governance app so we can comment there instead of here. Is there a plan to allow us to vote on our phones without using snapshot? Going back and fourth on 3 different apps is painful. Really happy to see DAO town halls happening in-world now. Is there a plan to bring more attention to the DAO by maybe creating a build that would allow us to jump in here from in-world? Maybe a spot in genesis plaza? Thanks for all the work you do.

Governance Squad 1H2023 Renewal

This proposal is now in status: PASSED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes 99% 8,123,181 VP (92 votes)
  • No 1% 7,279 VP (3 votes)

Governance Squad 1H2023 Renewal

This proposal has been ENACTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xfe91c0c482e09600f2d1dbca10fd705bc6de60bc)

Vesting Contract Address: 0x6c46aaDFe42f26d512B8aF0CF8C8F07969081dCd