[DAO:a779859] Should we restructure the way our DAO operates?

Governance
21

Hi everyone! I’ll do my best to address feedback in this thread. I want to emphasize that this poll is broad and meant to gather general community sentiment on whether we should rethink how the DAO operates. For more detailed discussions on specific topics, please refer to the RFCs I’ve published. That’s where we can start agreeing (or not!) on a path forward. If we try to do everything here, the thread may become too difficult to parse, and important details might get lost.

I’ll begin by addressing some points raised by LL, the former sole member of the Strategic Core Unit.

Centralization vs Decentralization
If we look back at the origins of decentralized and distributed networks—specifically the 1964 paper by Paul Baran titled On Distributed Communications—we see his famous network topology:

1612812901809

The concept of having groups with deep context who can make informed decisions while being held accountable by the community resembles a decentralized, bottom-up network. Power doesn’t radiate from a central node; instead, it’s granted by the peripheral nodes (the community) to the hubs (Councils or individuals with context).

It’s interesting that you’re concerned about centralization yet suggest handing control of the community treasury to the Decentraland Foundation, an organization where the community has no say or decision-making power. Doing so would solidify the power of a single entity, moving us closer to a centralized structure. In contrast, the ideas being proposed here involve creating an entity with execution power, hired by the DAO and accountable to the community.

VP Distribution
Let’s be honest: those holding significant assets (VP) and decision-making power don’t want to lose that power. How do we overhaul the voting power mechanism without their support? We need to reach a point where the DAO’s execution power gives VP holders confidence that we are acting efficiently, spending funds wisely, and aligned on shared goals to improve the project as a whole. Once we have that foundation, we can experiment with new ways of distributing power to the broader community.

In Lisbon, we revisited ideas like the Hybrid proposal, Quadratic Delegation, Contribution-Based Incentives, and even creating a sub-DAO for all curation duties. I wouldn’t say this issue has been overlooked; it was discussed in detail, as shown in the meeting notes.

Accountability
I fully agree with the idea of setting term limits for Council Members and structuring how they engage with the community. @esteban had some good thoughts on this, and I’d recommend continuing the conversation in the RFC. If this moves forward, we can include these points in the draft or governance proposals.

Finally, I’d like to ask what’s the idea or question behind the friendly reminder regarding the DAO Committee. Are you suggesting that we should go to an on-chain-only governance mechanism? By doing that we would leave a lot of people who cannot afford gas fees out of the voting system.

1 Like
22

Voting Yes.
Reasons: This GSS report, where we provide all the results from these three years, including expenditures and effectiveness), shows that we need to make changes.
Thanks!

1 Like
23

@ginoct I left comments on the RFC for the executive arm, and appreciate all your work into this.

However, let’s call a spade a spade. Again, in the same conversational tone we had on the twitter spaces - this is literally a top down approach. How so you ask…Who came up with this proposed structure?

Was it Maroz, Esteban, Yemel, yourself, and others at the “top” of each organization, or was it the person(s) with 10vp coming up with the idea and bringing it to the DAO Summit?

Like I’ve said before, just don’t pretend it’s a DAO by the definition of the acronym. There’s nothing proposed in this organizational that pushes the concept of a DAO closer to “Decentralized” or “Autonomous”.

(Edit)
I’m copying this from the RFC Executive Arm Draft Proposal discussion for complete coverage since it’s a very big topic.

The proposed structure creates 1) an executive branch 2) an elected council to “govern” the executive branch. The DAO (community) becomes TWICE removed from decision making.

The Executive Arm (decision making) → The DAO Council → The DAO (community) - this is how far removed the community will be from decision making.

4 Likes
24

I’m voting YES on this proposal because it tackles key operational inefficiencies and governance challenges within the DAO.

On Rebuilding the Voting Power System:

The issue isn’t the VP system itself but what we ask VP holders to vote on. VP represents stakeholders with “skin in the game,” ensuring those invested in the platform help safeguard its future. Anyone can acquire VP by holding tradable assets, maintaining decentralization.

We should focus VP holders’ votes on impactful topics, not burden them with minor decisions. This proposal suggests delegating resource allocation to a dedicated team that can execute strategies autonomously. This approach keeps significant decisions in the hands of VP holders while allowing day-to-day operations to be managed by an accountable team.

VP holders won’t vote to change the governance mechanism without a solid proposal that offers clear benefits to the project. I haven’t seen such a proposal yet.

I support exploring XP (experience power) to represent active users and creators in Decentraland (instead of stakeholders). XP could give users influence over product prioritization and content curation like POIs, NAMEs, and Places. However, we can’t yet include XP in governance due to risks like hacks, bots, and manipulation. This concept needs thorough testing before it can be considered for governance.

On Centralization Concerns:

Decentralization exists at various levels in Decentraland. Assets granting VP are decentralized and secured by smart contracts. The content layer is distributed across a network of servers. The SDK is an open standard that allows the implementation of the explorer in different game engines. All the code is open-source, enabling external contributions and providing the opportunity to reboot Decentraland if something happens to the main instance.

However, not all areas should be decentralized. Strategic decision-making and efficient capital allocation require delegation and accountability. Public voting alone isn’t enough because these decisions need deep context from decision-makers, active participation in negotiations, oversight, evaluation, and integration into a broader strategy. Centralizing this process under accountable leadership ensures better use of the DAO’s resources.

This proposal seeks to centralize the allocation of capital and strategy-making, but the governance process still belongs to VP holders. There are limits to what this organization can do, ensuring that VP holders retain control over significant decisions. Without centralizing these aspects, we risk inaction or misallocation of funds on projects with little impact.

On Accountability:

Accountability has been lacking in the DAO’s current structure. This proposal aims to address that by making a single individual responsible for operational efficiency. This person will be accountable for success or failure and can be removed if they don’t meet expectations. They will also have the authority to manage team members effectively.

Selection and oversight of this individual should be handled by representatives with deep knowledge of the DAO’s operations. VP holders should retain the ability to remove council members as a safeguard. I also support term limits for council members to bring in fresh perspectives.

The operational team should engage regularly with the stakeholders and users alike. Transparency and open communication are crucial.

On DAO’s Discord Toxicity:

Discord has become a pain point due to toxicity, hindering meaningful discussions and effective governance. Possible solutions include closing the DAO’s Discord channel and moving discussions to the forum for more structured exchanges, delegating Discord moderation to the operational team for consistent management, or merging DAO discussions with the Foundation’s Discord under clearer moderation guidelines. The goal is to foster a healthier environment for debate.

Why Not Transfer Part of the Treasury to the Foundation?

Transferring the DAO’s treasury to the Foundation would miss a crucial opportunity. The DAO has a chance to evolve into an autonomous entity managing its own resources. By transferring funds, we’d give up the autonomy the DAO needs to cultivate.

This proposal allows the DAO to hire an Executive Director who is accountable for operational decisions and ensures transparency. It enables the DAO to fund projects the Foundation may not prioritize, like alternative clients for Decentraland.

Consolidating everything under the Foundation contradicts the principle that it shouldn’t handle all aspects of the platform. The Foundation should focus on client development, while the DAO invests in creating a vibrant ecosystem of creators and exploring technical innovation outside of the Foundation’s roadmap.

Conclusion:

By voting YES, we move toward a more accountable and efficient DAO while maintaining decentralization where it matters. This restructuring is a necessary step for long-term success.

Thank you to everyone contributing to this vital discussion!

4 Likes
25

DAO definitely needs a switch up…

The current people that are operating the DAO have failed.

26

The issue is you guys let RobL steal 4-million VP and dictate the direction of the dao. That failure will haunt dcl until addressed.

2 Likes
27

First Things first: I was looking forward to the DAO Summit but felt skeptical about the need for an in-person meeting to tackle the DAO’s issues. There is an alternative to Discord, Zoom calls and IRL meetings where people can come together as a group and discuss, complete with all the conveniences of modern technology… It’s called the Metaverse, and in my view, we haven’t even tried to have these kinds of conversations there. We should be pioneers in using the Metaverse. How can we expect others to use the product ‘Decentraland’ if we aren’t even doing it ourselves? I don’t want to be sarcastic - I genuinely wonder about this.

About this Poll: It’s hard to understand how all parties could unanimously support what I see as a very controversial idea after only three days of discussions. This closed-door approach makes it difficult for the community to understand how these decisions were made.

I also notice attempts to downplay ‘centralization’ and claims that Decentraland remains decentralized despite the idea being presented here. I don’t think we should treat this lightly; rather, we should address these concerns seriously. The project is called ‘Decentraland,’ and any attempt at centralization should be recognized as a significant change. I believe it’s unwise to proceed with the steps discussed in this poll without considering other solutions.

To be clear: I’m not fundamentally against this idea. However, the way it was developed really concerns me. It feels like a preview of how future decisions could be made if this Poll passes - without properly involving the active users of Decentraland.

Therefore, I am voting no, even though I believe that we urgently need to change things to make the DAO functional.

7 Likes
28

Oh there is so much to discuss. First and foremost people, stop arguing over what is a poll at this juncture. 2nd, does anyone here believe the way things are is the ideal way to proceed? I betting not single one of us. OMG! Is that actually something we can all agree on, that the current state we are in is not working? WOW! How amazing is that unless I am mistaken and someone or some group believes this is Eutopia. 3rd. I have stated almost since I joined the DAO, there needs to be people with qualified skill sets to help us move forward in a positive way. It was shot down quickly and I find it a bit amusing that here we are and it’s a topic of discussion. Now, despite my feelings, beliefs and actual experience around a board or some committee being created for a DAO (which has proven more successful in other DAOs) I am leary to start one at this time. It’s a bit early and much to be learned and unless there will be an open line between the DAO and the Foundation there is so much that we would still be able to do so we would still be in the same boat. Lets start small, continue to learn, correct passed mistakes, build towards a better future for Decentraland. Making nasty comments and attacking people tells me that you have no interest in the well being and future of Decentraland. That your only concern is that what you believe and what you think is right and the only way. As time goes by there are alwatys going to have different opinions and thougjhts and beliefs so you are fighting a never ending battle that will just make for an unpleasant experience for many. So I don’t get what you think you are accomplishing by doing so. We are adults, are we not, act like one. We are civilized human beiings, so be civilized. We all have voices and opinions so come with facts and valid examples. I am stopping here, my vote is YES the DAO needs to try something new (I say try, cause we may fail again, and again but that’s life isn’t it?) and this moves us forward towards what those changes should actually be. Again, I remind you, lets celebrate that we all (i hope) agree that something needs to change. There are so many amazing and diverse people here lets

UniteNotFight
UniteNotFight1024×1024 318 KB

29

Should we restructure the way our DAO operates?

Yes

Should we centralize it?

Uhh… no. Last I checked, the D in DAO stands for Decentralized. Adding a corporate structure makes it a Centralized Autonomous Organization. CentralizedAO.

Welcome to TheCentraland who’s gonna mint it first?

Well, you all are going to do whatever you want so have at it! Why ask us about other DAO’s in the form if you had every intention to go in such a centralized direction? This was decided on before the meet.

If any of this works out I’d be surprised, but at least maybe you can continue to pave the way on what not to do so that others don’t make the same mistakes.

2 Likes
30

I am voting yes on this proposal because, after nearly three years of experimenting with the current system, it is clear that we need to explore alternative approaches to drive better results. While the current framework has brought some success, the challenges we’ve encountered—particularly in fund allocation to the Grants program and operational efficiency—highlight the need for change.

Also, the draft proposals linked here provide a solid way to take on the operational tasks that our DAO must address to improve. I believe this proposal offers a new perspective on how we can manage resources more effectively, and it’s worth testing this new model, even if only for a set period.

31

I’ve stated why this is not in the current best interest of the DAO, but I haven’t provided a substantive alternative. I will do so now.

I would suggest an Exploration Committee (preferably unpaid) to work with the Foundation over the next 4-6 months to identify what it takes to run decentraland." This collaboration with The Foundation would help identify:

  • the burn rate and costs associated with the platform
  • the current personnel required to maintain the platform
  • the vision for the next 6 years
  • any areas of collaboration the DAO can manage (marketing, tentpole events, sdk support, etc)
  • any possibilities of DAO members being able to approve code into the platform
  • any other areas the DAO community wants to have visibility into

With these data points, the DAO can be better informed on what it will take, from a potential organizational structure to autonomous technology, to manage, maintain, and sustain the platform into the future.

3 Likes
32

Should we restructure the way our DAO operates?

This proposal is now in status: FINISHED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes, i support this idea 95% 19,158,104 VP (50 votes)
  • No, i don’t agree with this 4% 995,867 VP (20 votes)
  • Invalid question/options 1% 106,848 VP (2 votes)
33

Should we restructure the way our DAO operates?

This proposal has been PASSED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)

34

can we let the other proposal finish before drafting this one:

35

I missed the voting period, but I am ready for a change.

I am not a fan of how closed off DCL feels lately with the DCL summit and more recently also with the DAO summit, and that the new structure has been created by a selected few attending the summit, but since the current system isn’t working, lets try something different and see how it goes. I will just treat this change as a one big experiment.

36

Never mind. I have nothing to say.

3 Likes
37

I agree 100% with ur thoughts @OnTheRise , the DAO is converting into a corrupt mechanism. The thing is except for the people at regensis no one knows what the change is going to be, the long write-ups are not seen by anyone as there are no people. Literally less than 50 people entirely in DCL. So this massive change is not being seen by anyone.

38

I just can’t believe the community thinks we will ever get anyone in these powerful seats that we want with the voting like what we see here. Then again, there isn’t much of a community left.

2 Likes
39

I sure did disclose a lot here for someone who allegedly signed an NDA…

1 Like
40

Dhingia, I don’t think it’s fair for you to claim that the DAO is becoming a corrupt mechanism, especially considering you’ve received over $150K in grants where one of the proposals was passed thanks to two whales that were accused as being part of a “DAO Drainer” group. Separately, you’ve been accused by some community members of being part of that group, and I believe you denied those accusations, and you have every right to do so. Yet, you’re now making similar claims without evidence, based solely on unsubstantiated rumors.

For instance, there was a rumor about an NDA being signed at the summit, which is simply and categorically untrue. You mentioned that “no one knows what the change is going to be,” when in reality, every proposal raised by Gino here reflects the discussions and collective agreements on suggestions (not decisions) made during the summit. All the documents, including presentation slides presented and discussed in the summit were attached in Notion for everyone to view. So to say that “no one knows what the change is going to be” is blatantly false.

Some of the comments here are based on rumors, misunderstandings or downright assumptions, further strengthens the fact why the summit needed to happen, where constructive discussions took place. Instead of the negativity, complaints, fabrications, and accusations filling the comment section, I see little focus on suggesting solutions, like the constructive contributions and practical suggestions made by Lastraum here.

6 Likes