Hi everyone (:
First of all, after days of debate, I’m glad to see that some users have reached a consensus on forming a more structured approach. While I understand that this move may seem like a shift toward centralization, I still believe it’s the right step for the sake of progress and efficiency. And no, this isn’t without precedent—other DAOs are already taking similar steps.
The advantages of such a structure would be clear in multiple areas. For example, if the DAO wanted to organize an event for a marketing campaign (e.g., Halloween), no one would take on the responsibility because: a) there isn’t a dedicated team for this, and b) the chances of achieving this through the grant system are slim, as most applicants tend to seek funding for personal projects rather than initiatives that benefit the platform as a whole. With a consistent, dedicated team, the possibility of hosting high-quality events more frequently becomes much more feasible.
This “experiences team” could also collaborate with other teams, like a potential “client team.” For instance, if modifications to the client were required for a special occasion (similar to when the Foundation organizes music festivals), the DAO could finally have the capacity to execute those changes.
Moreover, this new structure would enable us to expand the client team to better respond to community needs for new features and develop a more decentralized version of the platform. If you look at the Foundation’s approach with the new client, you’ll notice it leans towards a more centralized model, moving away from an open protocol by relying on private licenses and proprietary services. I understand why they’re doing this (for efficiency), but I still believe it’s our role to pull the rope toward decentralization, and currently, we aren’t doing enough in that regard.
Now, the second question that comes to mind is: how much oversight should this organization have, and what should be included in its scope?
At the summit, various models were proposed: some believe that the structure should reduce the DAO to its bare minimum (with most responsibilities transferred to the opco), while others want to maintain some of the DAO’s existing capabilities. Personally, I lean more toward the latter approach.
Decentraland is, at its core, a political platform. While this can sometimes be exhausting, it’s also what fuels the passion in our community: we feel like we’re part of something, and that our voices truly matter in the decision-making process. If we remove most of the governance mechanisms, the platform won’t feel the same.
Ideally, I would eliminate the mechanisms that allow the community to request funding for personal projects and instead focus solely on governance-related functions and critical aspects like the catalyst network or linked wearables.
So yeah, I agree with this proposal and I’m happy of how the summit went (thanks @ginoct and @Zino for the efforts being put here). If you have any suggestions or criticism, I’m open to hearing them, as long as they’re respectful.
Regards,
Tobik