by 0xd4f1cab694c4424c4796549edbb9b489789f4df5 (TudaMoon)
Currently, you only need one (1) proposal to get a grant approved, but you need three (3) to revoke a malicious grant. Currently, we have a Grant Support Squad and a Revocations Committee implemented by the DAO. These current processes are NOT permanent solutions as they must be re-enacted by the DAO in order to continue. The DAO always has the ability to make the final decisions over grants; whether it means overriding the GSS or Revocations Committee through a DAO proposal, or bypassing the GSS or Revocations Committee through a DAO proposal.
The current problem with the DAO proposal for grant revocations or overriding GSS or Revocations Committee’s decisions is that it takes way too much time before a grant’s vesting contract is paused. Three (3) proposals takes too long while the DAO funds have potential to be drained.
Create a new proposal Category for DAO called Grant Revocation. There are two (2) ways this category could be used:
This Category would be for overriding Grant Support Squad Decisions or overriding Revocations Committee Decisions.
This Category would be to start the Revocations process bypassing the Grant Support Squad and Revocations Committee.
This new Category would come with a new process of revocation.
There will be 2 proposals total.
First revocation stage if passed (in favor of revoking) by DAO would pause the vesting contract for the grant in question.
Public Hearing will occur prior to the second revocation stage and only after the first revocation stage passes.
Second revocation stage will determine whether the grant is revoked or not revoked. If revoked, the vesting contract will be terminated indefinitely and funds will be returned back to the DAO. If not revoked, the vesting contract will un-pause and continue as is. However time lost to the grantee will be extended to allow time for grantee to catch up on roadmap.
Public Hearing Process
This is a suggested way for the process to work, but can be altered in next stages of this governance proposal process to improve it.
Preferably Public Hearings will be take place on Discord in the Decentraland DAO Discord or on a Twitter Space. However, no one can be blocked or rejected from entering the public hearing. And it must be done at a reasonable time. A quorum of eight (8) DAO members who are not related to the grant must be present for the public hearing. All Public Hearings will be recorded.
Grantee will have an Opening Statement that can last ten (10) minutes maximum where evidence and such can be shown. After the opening statement, there will be a DAO Questioning Period where each member of the DAO will be allowed to ask up to three (3) questions, with one (1) follow up per question. This DAO questioning period can only last up to one (1) hour total. However responses of these questions must be direct and must be relevant. Any delay of time by the grantee’s answer will extend the questioning period. After the DAO questioning period, Closing Statements will occur. The Grantee will give a closing statement for up to three (3) minutes. Up to three (3) members of the DAO will be allowed to give closing statements up to one (1) minute each for a total of three (3) minutes. The DAO can have less than three (3) members give a closing statement, but the total allocated time is three (3) minutes total.
A vote ‘For’ this would move this to the next governance stage. A vote ‘Against’ would end this pre-proposal.
lol public hearings. This sounds great to people who love to turn the DAO into a circus, but I personally feel like such matters are better handled in private rather than publicly out of respect for grantees. Grantees can always go public with their defenses if they wish. I am not in favor of attaching puppet strings to them and making them dance on stage for us in the form of public hearings.
Lets consider for a moment that being a content creator is hard enough already as it is. It should be noted that the author of this proposal is not a content creator, and that it is easy for proposals such as this to be created at the expense of others for entertainment purposes.
I feel like I would support this if putting out this proposal was only possible through the revocations committee. IE: revocations committee votes; if vote passes to recommend a revocation, it gets given to the DAO.
Like that GSS can keep supporting. The revocations committee can give their reasoning on why it should be removed without applying pressure to the GSS. The community can have a say, and grantees are given more respect and the benefit of the doubt (this is important for genuine cases; not everyone here is using grants in bad faith).
I agree that we should avoid making a spectacle out of this.
What are we trying to fix ? Which proposals weren’t revoked and should have been or the opposite ?@Tudamoon
I think community is too focused on revokation when revokations themselves demostrate that something else is wrong in the DAO / Decentraland.
I like to allow the community to take part on all processes, but by other hand, I have the feeling that some proposals will be driven without the appropriate criteria or knowledge than from specialists, there can be toxicity, lobbyism, manipulation, interests, etc.
I’m going to abstain my vote on this for now, but I don’t have good feeling about it, basically, I think that anything related with a “revocation” topic is because other thing is wrong.
It’s not about if I like the author or not, I asked a question and the author just ignored it and focused to attack and make accusations of unrelated stuff, as the author is not capable to answer and have a normal and constructive conversation about the proposal, I voted the proposal as invalid. I didn’t vote YES not NO, just invalid.
Where have you been? Have you been blind to half the proposals out there that are not showing any good faith? You dont have to like me, but this question didnt deserve answering. You just needed a way to vote anyway other than yes.
Also how about you look at all the people you voted for who make 10 comments to hide questions asked from the community? Or all the other grantees who say they already answered the question. Meanwhile they have literally gave an answer worse than a politician. Until you see that, You are creating the problem only to make yourself be the one to provide the solution with your new proposal.
Hey Seanny I have noticed recently that you have been active with the community in calls and chats, I honestly feel like there is a certain group of people that are trying to empower the revocation comittee since they either are trying to join this group or have friends in this group, Those people that I am talking about are people that are biased and IMO empower their ideas could be really dangerous to the DAO since a few of them threaten every grantee that votes in the interest of MT like I have to get revoked, they even choose to harass us and even accuse us of things they make up in their heads.
I am going to share what I have posted in the previous proposal that tudamoon has posted.
and I am asking you to read and decide for yourself who you are putting your faith in.
These people are FOMOing projects and grantees making it really hard for us to work just focused on the project and they are the ones dividing this very same DAO. I have been talking about this in the past aswell and lost many respected friends just because of the way I vote in a Decentralized DAO and have been called in discussion to elaborate for why I did this. I feel like if I neglect their question they are going to pressure me by saying I am not elaborating with them or the route I choose which is answering their questions because I am over confident about my project by telling me unsatisfied follow up questions looking and pinpointing all the small details on any thing they can find.
IMO @Seanny we should have a environment where we all can vote however we like and have hope for this dao, right now we are fighting about everything on the inside and cant present DCL to new people on the outside.
I dont know how to place such an example in this scenario I have seen nothing malicious by anyone, and I dont believe I voted in anything malicous ofcourse this is subjective to each individual in this sense.
Why i think your example is not usable for this case is because there havent been a proposal as bad as this:
Proposal to kill puppies?
Yes: is bad person obviously this does no good to anything.
No: is good person obviously this does save puppies.
but in our case its more like:
Shall we double land vp?
Yes: Might be bad for some and good for other ( If I hold land I vote yes which benefits me many other )
also in your case what you believe is a scam or put up as to drain this dao, might be in my reality the other way around because i believe in the project.
Its like blaming me for putting faith in a project that has no obvious draining intentions.
If it said like.
This proposal will bring 18 billion people to dcl:
our steps are we are going to force them for 240k.
This would be an obvious drain i wudnt support aswell there are only 8B ppl on earth so this task is impossible.