Responding to Dhingia’s Comment:
There are many assumptions being made here, and the choice of words used to describe the people who attended the summit, including myself, is unpleasant. Labeling the attendees as “pets” is uncalled for. During the summit, I had the pleasure of meeting people passionate about Decentraland and concerned about the sustainability of the DAO. Not everyone agreed on every idea, and there were conflicts during discussions, but they were all voiced and debated professionally without name-calling or insults. Your response here highlights exactly why in-person summits or meetups are important: emotions were expressed through professionalism and respect, even in disagreement.
Assumption #1: “The DAO will be operated by the founders and high-position holders’ friends.”
This is an assumption, as there has been no decision on who will operate the DAO. Meritocracy will be the foundation of the selection process, not asset holdings. Ultimately, the community will vote on who should be in the DAO Council.
Assumption #2: “Folks who got free trips are now scrambling to form a centralized group of IRL unemployed people.”
The “free trip” was extended to DCL Ambassadors, which you could have joined if you had applied. Many attendees were employed and brought diverse, practical, and constructive ideas on managing the DAO and its finances to ensure sustainability. If the plan was to form a centralized group, they wouldn’t need our voices or input—they could simply execute a takeover. While you may have your reasons for not attending, that doesn’t justify name-calling those who did.
Assumption #3: “The current core VIPs are already on a very expensive payroll. Literally, a group of under 10 people on USD 1500 per person a month could handle any company/organization, but no, we need millions per year to run the DAO.”
The Core Units’ total expense this year is $360,100—not in the millions, as you stated. However, I agree that salaries should be reviewed and pegged to living costs, especially when output doesn’t match the effort. The DAO should operate with a lean team of experienced individuals with clear KPIs, objectives, and goals.
Assumption #4: “I know each name that would be on this new council. Let’s see how fast they can burn whatever is left in the name of DECENTRALISATION.”
How can you know the names when none have been suggested or voted on? It seems you resist change, even when the DAO has spent millions empowering creators but still struggles to attract and retain users. You personally benefited from over $150,000 for two proposals, with the latter passed thanks to two users holding 5M VP. Without them, your proposal wouldn’t have passed. Given your concerns about decentralization, was your proposal passed through fair and distributed VP, or was it centralized, as two users swayed the outcome?
LordLike highlighted a crucial issue: “The central issue of voting power being concentrated in the hands of whales has not been addressed.” I agree that this needs addressing for fair progress. No system is perfect, but we must make changes to ensure long-term sustainability. Millions have been spent without accountability. This is why restructuring is necessary. We’ve spent enough on “experimentation” and “innovation,” and many who benefited financially have disappeared when the funds stopped. This shows that some were here primarily for financial gain without accountability, let alone dedicated or passionate about Decentraland or the community.
The formation of a Council aims to change this, ensuring that those operating the DAO align with its mission and vision. The Executive will be responsible for and accountable for every decision. I voted Yes because I believe change in structure and organization is necessary to sustain the DAO for the future, especially as we prepare for when the Foundation dissolves.
