[DAO:a824ee8] Temporarily Pausing the uptake of new Decentraland Grants

by 0xaca8fbbdddfce169114f344d8ee739bde665f4f4 (Seanny)

Linked Pre-Proposal

Should we temporarily pause DCL’s grants programme until Q1 2023?


This draft proposal is a continuation of the already approved poll calling for a temporary pause in the Decentraland grants system.


[Please refer to this poll Should we temporarily pause DCL's grants programme until Q1 2023? to remain up to date on this decision]

The poll setting this draft proposal led to open dialogue where multiple different members of the community brought opinions, information and value to the table, aimed at debating this proposal.

In spirit of agency, this draft proposal aims to add more of a focus on the question at hand:

Should we temporarily pause DCL’s grants programme until Q1 2023?

Through this proposal, we wish to propose the following action points:

  • Temporarily pause the uptake of new grant proposals;
  • Ensure the pause does not negatively harm the creative community;
  • Reach a consensus on the potential pause itself;


Governance is a fundamental part of our DAO, and a two-month pause in our grants system can give the DCL Community a chance to turn its energy toward passing a multitude of upcoming governance decisions.

The record for the highest-voted draft proposal was 103 votes. The average amount of votes achieved across all our draft proposals is 51.

On the horizon, we have upcoming decisions for:

…and that’s just to point out a few.

All debates, discussions, and interests aside; this proposal reaffirms the belief that voting on grants requires constant, arduous contributions to the DAO; at the expense of attention, time, and energy. A pause in voting on grant-focused decisions is an opportunity for delegates and voters to breathe and take stock of all the decisions they have taken over the past months.

As DAO voters, we must also have time to pause and look back at the stands we have taken, with the curiosity of knowing how our decisions played out over time.

Remember; within a DAO, you are far more similar to a parliamentarian than you are to a citizen within a state. Decision fatigue is a serious risk, that we would be intelligent to avoid.

A pause in our grants system is the perfect opportunity to both reflect on our past decisions, whilst also shifting our collective focus on the most important decisions we have to collectively make.


Proposed Plan of Action

The Final Governance vote must be BEFORE the 20th of December, 2022.

Current open grants remain unaffected by this pause.

The pause will only remain in effect for a maximum of TWO months.

The pause must cause as little disruption as possible to the creative community. This draft proposal can serve as a potential initial notice on the dates and potential plans for the pause, should the proposal pass.

This draft is to feed into a final governance proposal, which shall outline the entire step-by-step process with clarity and ease, whilst also outlining the different responsibilities related to the decision (such as who will be implementing the pause on the backend).

Proposed Timeline:

Last day to submit a grant proposal: 24th December, 2022 23:59PM EST

Last day to vote on a grant proposal: 31st December, 2022 23:59PM EST

Grant Programme Pause [no votes on grants; full focus on governance]: 1st January, 2023, 00:00AM EST

Grant Programme Resume: 1st March, 2023, 00:00AM EST


The intended outcome of this entire proposal is to continue building on the great discussions had in the last poll, with the ultimate aim of gathering the community together to focus on governance-based decision-making.

A pause in voting for grants can be the perfect moment for us to enter the new year with both energy and conviction to make 2023 the best year for DCL yet.

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

I forgot to mention this in the poll but is there any way we can still allow platform category just in case? Don’t hate me haha we still have one more stage at least. Has this been suggested yet? :upside_down_face: :grimacing:

Hi, I like the idea of pausing the grants to reflect about its role, but I’m worried that in this second stage still the points to discuss are not clearly defined.

There should be a very specific and small set of points to focus on during those 2 months, otherwise nothing will come from this pause.

I feel like this draft is failing to convey what exactly will be done (and by who, and how) in the time the grants are paused.


Hi Seanny!

I’d like to see a timeline with a proposal on what would you like the community to actually focus on during these two months. Meanwhile, voting no. I agree with @Eibriel and @AaronLeupp that the points to discuss are not defined, ownership is not addressed, deliverables are not being proposed, and we lack of good arguments on how pausing the grants program adds focus from the community to those activities.

1 Like

Hi @Seanny !
Thank you for writing this draft.
I think this draft needs clarity on exactly what will be done, who will do it, and what the steps by steps are that ensure the resume of the grant program.
I know you wrote that these mentioned points would be in the next final governance proposal,
but in order not to make any hasty decision, the points should be explained in advance.

1 Like

Voting YES.

  • Clear timeline for the pause (main concern raised in previous proposal)
  • Allows for grants/platform requirements to be submitted before this comes to action
  • Great timing as the grants structure is being restructured

With regards to “what to do during that time” (@Eibriel): I think a good answer is “nothing”. The lack of “goals” of this proposal is a feature, not a bug. The work to improve the grants program is already ongoing – like the excellent DRAFT - Restructuring the Grant's Program. While all of that gets voted on, implemented, communicated, and iterated, this pause will reduce the noise and decision fatigue.

For example: one of the proposed changes on the structure of grants calls for a budget limit per quarter per category of grants. What if I have a proposal that is being voted on in the middle of that getting passed? Will it get in the budget or not? Should it? Should the people proposing the budget account for these edge cases? I’m not saying these are hard problem or that they doesn’t have a solution, I’m just pointing out that it’s gonna be easier/cleaner/leaner to get that done while grants are paused.



Screen Shot 2022-11-30 at 7.01.58 AM

Whyyy was my post “hidden” was flagged for “off topic”? Can who ever flagged and remove my comment explain to me how it was off topic??? We censoring speech now? We censoring points of views some disagree with? Thank you.


Hi Aaron,

Sorry to flag it, it was me as I still have my old moderator rights on this forum. I felt your comment was completely off-topic and not constructive, and if taken seriously, should be posted as a completely different proposal. Could you elaborate more on why do you think your comment is not just a comic-relief (I must admit – quite funny), extremely relevant and respectful of the time and best interests of everyone to read it?

It still nevertheless shown on the governance app for what is worth!


Haha let’s be real here bro. Not only was what I said “on-topic” several people even liked, referenced and agreed with what I said as the communication continued on the topic lol. I say this with only love and respect, you have every right to censor me and even ban me from this forum and even Decentraland as a whole at anytime. And if you do, I will still have nothing but love and respect for you personally for what you have done and built for us all. I will also have nothing but love for my entire experience in Decentraland as a whole. Everyone that knows me knows I owe all my growth in terms of almost 20,000 Twitter followers, 100,000+ Waifumon NFT owners and most important of all my Metaverse friends I have obtained along the way I am truly great full for personally. So do what must.

You can also put this up for a vote as you did, but again we all know people only may have something to lose if they vote in favor against your original actions. I also got massive respect for your transparency that you let us all know it was you that did it. You didn’t have to do that so thank you for your transparency. Also think its cool of you to let us know you have this power and are consider retiring it due to the lord of the ring reference you made lol. Most importantly of all I am honored to make history as the only person you ever censored.

Just in case. If this the last thing I ever get to say, love you all fam Decentraland Fam :saluting_face: I look forward to all your continued success and ventures from the side lines. And to you @esteban I would have followed you, my brother… My captain… My king.

Ethereum can switch from PoW to PoS without ever pausing, but we need to do so to make changes to our grants program? :roll_eyes:

The support for pause assumes a few things which will bite us back :

  • The changes made during this period will be perfect and the grants program will never need to be altered ever after.
  • There will be no unintended consequences from this. (No projects with great potential shutting down, The strong momentum we have had recently in DAO participation won’t be affected, etc etc)

Pausing the grants programme will be an over-reaction to a not-yet-existent problem.

Voted yes, 2 months of pause is acceptable, and let’s take this time to test what impact can have after pausing, and we learn from it.

@Seanny I am asking for clarification because I have a feeling it will come up. If someone were to submit a $240k proposal on the 24th of December and voting period lasts longer than the 31st, what happens?

Super good point Tuda. This is was an oversight on my end.

In this case, the last day to submit the proposal would be 17th December 2022.

In essence, we want to have a common end time for all voting on grants; and any proposals would have to be submitted before that voting deadline.

Building on @esteban’s point; I think the Governance Proposal can outline all the roles, responsibilities and timelines accordingly. Would be best if we can outline any more scenarios throughout this draft just to ensure we cover everything in advance.

1 Like

Pausing grants during times of extreme downturn makes sense and is in line with what a traditional business does to survive and thrive long term.

Fully support more regulation around proposals pricing, the tiers are great but we should have more restrictions on requirements to successfully file the higher tiers, and lower tiers should still require existing proofs.

We need information on user acquisition and retention cost in proposals, majority of grants should be retroactive…


Two points I want to raise here, from my personal perspective.

First, I think the Community Grants Program is self-regulating itself, and we are seeing more and more grants fail to meet the threshold, and the asks of grants decrease in their size. I think we will see this trend continue if we allow the grants program to continue without pause.

Second, Pausing the Community Grants Program opens a potential vector of PR/Media attack against us. While I don’t think we should or should not pause the program because of how others might cover it, and we need to make a decision that is in the best interest of our community and our platform, I do think it is something we need to consider, and consider the impacts of.

The pause could be perceived and/or portrayed as a sign of instability and undermine confidence in our ecosystem. I think the initial CoinDesk article already took a step in this direction: Decentraland DAO Considers Pausing Grants as FTX Collapse Spotlights Diversification.

In a worst case scenario, we could see far more value erased from our treasury due do a drop in our token price following this decision, than we would in grants going out to community members during the same duration of time.

“Decentraland Halts Community Grants Program Amid Crypto Crash” … … Not a good look in my opinion. And I believe a normative consensus among stakeholders to temporarily reduce support for grants, in addition to the self-regulation we are already seeing, could produce the same affect of pausing the program as a whole, while mitigating collateral risk that is beyond our control.

If you can’t tell by my post, I am one of the no votes on this proposal. That said, community consensus and dialogue is my primary prerogative as a DAO Facilitator, and I will do everything in my power to support this proposal through its progression and help facilitate impact assessments and implementation pathways if/as we move into the subsequent stage.

1 Like

Respectfully, @Matimio I disagree.

As for your first point, isn’t this part of self-regulating? Would you mind explaining how it isn’t?

Regarding your second point, are we wrong to believe that anyone can twist any neutral thing to be positive or negative? If we base our actions on what others think, then who really has the power and control? I am against giving power to those who are trying to take us down. Instead we need to continue pushing forward in the “right” direction regardless of how the media covers it. If the sheep will believe their lies, then those same sheep will believe the lies that lead them to the slaughterhouse.

We can use the free attention, obviously all these marketing grants haven’t been too effective during this bear market. Do you really think this potential media attack is going to change anything. I am for acting on what we can control and we can do our best to give the positive light on this, however, someone who is seeking darkness will avoid light.

Hi Matimio! I see your concern, and respectfully disagree. To steelman your argument, it’s in the best interest of our community to look strong and attract more members to it. Bad press is a heavy deterrent for this. But I would focus on what’s best for our community rather than what the optics of it are – a short pause, with a clear deadline, and a better plan when we resume. Making decisions based on its optics frequently leads to bad outcomes.


All Good. I see your and others side of why a pause is a net positive for the community. I’m not really trying to convince anyone otherwise, I think its great to see the conviction around this issue, and the relative consensus around it. I simply wanted to share my differing opinion, and my concern, is less so around the bad press or optics, but around the possibility that it could impact token-price and equal a similar amount of value-lost (at least temporarily).

I think we will need to coordinate amongst all of us to ensure we have a solid plan in place for the pause period, and happy to contribute to those conversations and process in any way I and our facilitation team can!

Hey Esteban! We haven’t formally met, but we did chat a lil on a spaces awhile back about accessibility many months ago. So nice to see you here and chatting with us again!

My worries about a pause with no clear plan, is exactly that.

Has anyone looked at how many grants have gone through that have taken advantage of the system since the community began discussing ways to reform over the last say 3 months? It would not be many, and not enough for the alarm people are having right now. Then think about how many will go through in the next 3 months? It’d be fair to assume the same as above right?

My main concerns with this proposal are…

  1. How can the person perpetuating the problem give a realistic solution?
  2. With no real clear and present danger, why are we requiring a pause?
  3. There are other, current, and more consequential problems to deal with at the moment. Like VP inequity that can help combat some of the issues presently and offer a real solution to benefiting the DAO.

Thanks for allowing me a space to have my own thoughts on it all :sparkles:

Temporarily Pausing the uptake of new Decentraland Grants

This proposal is now in status: PASSED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes 89% 9,713,496 VP (138 votes)
  • No 11% 1,301,187 VP (17 votes)