by 0x247e0896706bb09245549e476257a0a1129db418 (LordLike)
This poll proposes to set a time-out period for community members who have already received a grant from the Decentraland DAO, preventing them from applying for another grant for a certain period of time.
During this period, grantees are encouraged to use their existing funds to develop their projects and demonstrate their progress to the community.
The time-out period aims to ensure that the budget for each grant category is distributed fairly and that other community members have equal opportunities to receive support for their projects.
The proposed idea has several advantages, including:
Encouraging grantees to use their existing funds effectively, which can lead to the development of more impactful and sustainable projects.
Ensuring that the budget for each grant category is distributed fairly, which can promote inclusivity and diversity within the Decentraland community.
Creating a more transparent and accountable grant process, which can increase trust and participation among community members.
To vote, select one of the following options:
Yes: Implement a time-out period for grantees who have already received a grant. The duration of the time-out period and the length of time during which the limit is imposed should be discussed by the community and proposed in Draft and Governance proposals.
No: Leave as it is.
Please note that the duration of the time-out period and the length of time during which the limit is imposed are not specified in this poll and will be discussed and proposed in separate Draft and Governance proposals.
IMO, when a Grantee requests funds they are requesting the amount that they say they need to complete their project. A cool down period is a good idea to allow the community to garner proper use of the funds while also gaining confidence that the grantee has used those funds in the way that they said they will. This seems like a fair idea but what interim period between grants are you recommending?
A true quarter between grants should be enough time to satisfy any requirements. As an example, a grantee proves successful in fulfilling their grant in February. They would be eligible to apply for another grant in July.
My initial reaction was a quick “YES”, but after thinking about it more, I’m not so sure it’s a good idea. Let’s say we have a project like GenesisCity. If they make their project from start to completion, maybe it’s a good thing if they can come right back and continue to be funded to innovate further. If a project has hit every mark on their roadmap and 100% successfully completed what they said they would do, I feel like they should have equal access to another grant.
Actually…projects that successfully prove they can deliver on their promises should not be penalized from continued innovation. Maybe they are the ones we should be inviting back to the table to keep pushing the platform forward, and helping others from their learned experiences.
I’ve seen projects receive grants and less than two months later, apply for a different type of grant (under a slightly different name, of course), and this is not appropriate in my mind.
I’m going to see what the community thinks before I vote, because this could be both good, or bad for our ecosystem.
I think we should see how the reformed community grants program functions, before we make any more major decisions regarding the grants. A lot of time and effort went into revamping the program, and we are just coming out of a pause period.
Well put together pre-proposal poll, however, and I appreciate the clarity of separating decision from discussion. I overall support the process of this, regardless of the outcome.
That sounds like an interesting idea! I have a “feeling” the grantee might deliberately overstate the budget to obtain the necessary funding because, after their period, they will have a cool-down period.
Do you imagine how this could be mitigated?
I like the timeout idea, but it should be more of an etiquette than a rules in my opinion.
Yemel started grants for different squads which are acting at the same time, he would not have been able to do that with a time out.
The community can vote no by themselves on a proposal, no need to block an address for a certain amount of time from starting a new proposal.
This is poll and i am sure in further stages it can be polished in that way to avoid such situations as with Yemel. The reality is that many community members dont know how much grants already have taken grantee.
This doesn’t make sense. Groups that can perform and have a history of delivering should be able to manage multiple projects if the community sees value. Arbitrarily saying groups that can perform cannot perform more is a waste time.