Hi People ! First of all, I want to extend my thanks to Community and DCL Founders who are still here and working hard to resolve the DAO’s core issues - a big shout out to Maraoz, Yemel, and Esteban for your dedication.
I’d like to share some thoughts on the current proposal:
-
I believe the current direction is becoming too centralized, which contradicts the core concept of a DCL DAO where “decentralization” is fundamental to its name and identity. This shift undermines the essential principles of decentralized governance.
-
The central issue of voting power being concentrated in the hands of whales has not been addressed. This should be the first priority because, without solving this, we will continually face the same challenges. Whales will impose vetoes on decisions they disagree with, perpetuating the imbalance. While there has been talk of a hybrid reputation system, I have yet to see concrete steps in this direction.
-
Any restructuring of the DAO must include clear mechanisms for accountability. Currently, there is a lack of accountability, as core units and the DAO committee often fail to adhere to binding governance proposals and established procedures. So far, there have been no instances of core units or committee members being removed, likely due to personal relationships, fear of repercussions, and the community lacking sufficient VP to take action. If we proceed with establishing a centralized council and operational arm without addressing the VP imbalance, I believe the situation could worsen.
Additionally, the proposal does not clearly define term limits for council members. Without these limits, council members could remain in power indefinitely - similar to the current situation with the DAO Committee, where we’ve seen abuses of power.
-
One of key aspects missing from the RFC proposals is a clear requirement for oparm and council members to regularly engage with the Community to understand its sentiment. It is crucial that decision-makers conduct sessions or hold open forums to gather community feedback.
-
DAO’s Discord Toxicity also requires attention. At present, there is a DAO committee member who bans and unbans members at their own discretion, ignoring the community-approved code of ethics. This kind of unilateral control should end to ensure fair and transparent governance discussions.
-
We already have the Decentraland Foundation functioning as a traditional centralized non-profit entity that manages the DCL client. Why not consider transferring part of the DAO’s treasury to the Foundation to support critical initiatives while continue freezing grants until the DAO resolves its core issues and becomes autonomous, fair, accountable, and, most importantly - decentralized.
Also, friendly reminder from Decentraland Proposal: DAO 2.0 on DAO Committee :
This is an interim solution.
The combination of a committee and off-chain votes would be used only until a more robust second layer solution is created or until gas fees become lower and less volatile due to advances in Ethereum. At that point, Decentraland’s DAO may return to full on-chain governance. The aim of this interim solution is, indeed, to prevent certain current technical frictions from degrading the decentralized governance of the DAO
P.S. Technology (Protocol) and Governance are distinct aspects, and both must be decentralized to uphold the true spirit of decentralization.