While I believe this is a fair and important proposal, I would like to provide some context based on the challenges the DAO Council has faced since its formation.
Following the Council selection vote, it took approximately two to three months for members to work through disagreements over processes, and internal conflict before we became fully aligned and able to operate effectively as a single body. Disagreements involving the DAO Committee’s processes also contributed to Maraoz’s resignation, which required another selection process before Mono joined the Council. This experience demonstrated that forming a functional Council involves more than electing five individuals; it takes time to establish trust, working relationships, internal procedures, and a shared understanding of responsibilities.
The Council also operated for approximately seven months without receiving compensation because it did not have access to the funds intended for Council payments following the DAO Committee’s refusal to transfer the relevant keys. Despite this, members continued contributing, held meetings monthly instead of the quarterly minimum required by the Charter, and continued contributing to the broader ecosystem. Although the access issue remains unresolved, the Council established a successful alternative payment process through the work of Agus and Mono. Gino from Regenesis Labs also volunteered to assist in the interim, but the Council declined that kind offer as a matter of principle because Regenesis Labs should not be expected to cover the Council’s obligations.
The current Council also represents a distinctive combination of experience, access, technical knowledge, and community exposure:
-
Agus is a former Foundation executive who understands its internal context and maintains direct communication with Foundation members and executives.
-
Fehz is a former Decentraland DAO governance contributor with experience in Decentraland’s governance processes and knowledge of how other DAO ecosystems operate.
-
Mono provides the Council with essential technical expertise, including the ability to assess technical proposals and implementations. His work was also instrumental in establishing an alternative solution for Council payments.
-
Canessa is highly active in-world and maintains direct exposure to creators and community members. Her participation allows her to bring ground-level feedback into Council discussions and helps ensure that proposed initiatives reflect what is actually happening within Decentraland.
-
MetaRyuk: I see my contribution as providing a critical and objective assessment of proposed initiatives while remaining directly involved in community activities, scene deployments, testing, and constructive feedback. Drawing on my professional experience as a researcher and analyst, I also share assessments of the Web3 metaverse sector, the factors behind the failure of other ecosystems, and potential implications for Decentraland with the Council, Regenesis Labs, and Esteban from the Foundation.
We should be practical about Decentraland’s current position. Its long-term survival requires commitment and cooperation between the Foundation and the DAO, supported by Council members who understand the ecosystem and can maintain those relationships. Yemel’s resignation affected communication between the Council and the Foundation, and efforts are underway to establish an effective working relationship with the interim director. At the same time, Esteban has become increasingly open to engaging with both the Council and the community, including discussions about Decentraland’s sustainability following the closure of other NFT-based metaverse platforms.
For these reasons, I support defined terms and periodic re-election, but I do not support having every Council member’s term expire simultaneously or requiring capable members to leave solely because they have completed a fixed number of terms. Elections should provide accountability and allow the community to reconfirm, or withdraw, each member’s mandate. They should not unnecessarily remove institutional knowledge or disrupt a Council that is functioning effectively.
Council terms should therefore be staggered so that only one seat, or a limited number of seats, comes up for election at a time. Existing members should be permitted to seek re-election, subject to the community’s approval. This would create regular accountability and opportunities for new candidates while ensuring continuity, proper handovers, and knowledge transfer. It would also reduce the risk of an entirely new Council having to rebuild working relationships, operational knowledge, access arrangements, and internal processes from the beginning.
In summary: yes to defined terms, yes to mandatory periodic re-election, yes to staggered election cycles, and yes to allowing existing Council members to stand for re-election. No to replacing the entire Council at once, and no to forcing a Council member to take a mandatory two-year break if they continue to perform well and receive the community’s support for re-election.
