by 0x858343382132b9ab46c857a7d52fdbafc039f784 (Zino)
According to the Poll to improve the DAO Grants Program that passed, we are moving forward with Stage A as defined in the proposal.
Considering the feedback gathered from the forum post and its consequent poll, it’s time for the Community to decide between the options drafted, showing the pros and cons of each one.
1. Grants Pre-Selection Committee (GPSC): This committee, selected by the community for a set duration, will be responsible for reviewing the grant request before the community votation, and their work will be remunerated.
Their primary role is to decide which projects receive funding, considering factors like feasibility, team experience, contribution to the DAO, and impact. The committee should be diverse and qualified, comprising community members with expertise in areas like SDK latest stable version, blockchain, marketing, finance, 3D modeling, governance and content curation. Additional desirable qualifications include previous grantee experience, involvement in the DAO, and participation in governance proposals.
Pros:
- Mitigate the passing of grants that are not technically feasible or that do not comply with its category impact metrics.
- Being filtered previously to the passing, saving money and resources from the DAO (community voting time, onboarding from GSS, DAO’s committee enacting contracts, money from the first month on the grant, when it might not be technically feasible)
- This Committee would aim to ensure a more structured, professional, and efficient evaluation process for grants in Decentraland, involving specific knowledge in decision-making and ensuring that proposals are reviewed and aligned with the DAO objectives.
- Mitigate whale-passing
Cons:
- Will have a cost to the DAO, to be defined if this option is chosen.
- Selection will be based on community voting (hiring process), and there is a risk of whale-passing the members who are selected.
2. Grants Selection Committee (GSC): This committee, selected by the community for a set duration, will be responsible for reviewing the request and selecting Grant applications, managing the quarterly budget at discretion, and their work will be remunerated. This model is the most-used today in grants programs from DAOs.
Their primary role is to decide which projects receive funding, considering factors like feasibility, team experience, contribution to the DAO, and impact. The committee should be diverse and qualified, comprising community members with expertise in areas like SDK late stable version, blockchain, marketing, finance, 3D modeling, governance, and content curation. Additional desirable qualifications include previous grantee experience, involvement in the DAO, and participation in governance proposals.
Pros:
- Mitigate the passing of grants that are not technically feasible or that do not comply with its category impact metrics.
- This Committee would aim to ensure a more structured, professional, and efficient evaluation process for grants in Decentraland, involving specific knowledge in decision-making and ensuring that proposals are reviewed and aligned with the DAO objectives.
Being filtered previously to the passing, saving money and resources from the DAO (community voting time, onboarding from GSS, DAO’s committee enacting contracts, money from the first month on the grant, when it might not be technically feasible) - Mitigate whale-passing
Cons:
- Will have a cost to the DAO, to be defined if this option is chosen.
Selection will be based on community voting (hiring process), and there is a risk of whale-passing the members who are selected.
Centralization (or delegating to trusted community members).
3. Qualified Voting: Generate a verification -based on criteria to be defined- of community members qualified to vote on grant proposals.
Pros:
- The community will have more context of the prospect grant to vote, mitigating the passing of grants that are not feasible or that do not comply with their category impact metrics.
- There is no cost to the DAO for people who engage in voting for grants.
Cons:
- There is no framework designed yet for this type of contribution, so implementation might take longer than other options.
- A scoring system to measure how much weight voters have will be needed.
4. Grant Feasibility Analysts: a group of people selected by the community for a set duration will make a report on the prospect grants proposal page on its technical feasibility, compliance on impact metrics under their category, and then the community will vote as it is now.
For implementing this option, the prospect Grant analyzers need to consider factors like feasibility, experience, remuneration, contribution to the DAO, and expected impact. The members should be diverse and qualified, comprising community members with expertise in areas like SDK late stable version, blockchain, marketing, finance, 3D modeling, governance and content curation.
Pros:
- The community will have more context of the prospect grant to vote, mitigating the passing of grants that are not feasible or that do not comply with their category impact metrics.
- We would nurture an economy of DAO contributors by remunerating their work
Cons:
- Will have a cost on the DAO
- There is no framework designed yet for this type of contribution, so implementation might take longer than other options.
- This won’t mitigate whale-passing grants.
5. Grant Support Squad Analysis: The Grant Support Squad will make a report on the prospect grants proposal page on its technical feasibility, compliance on impact metrics under their category, and then the community would vote as it does now. To implement this option, we should amplify the capacity of a squad.
Pros:
- Experience in Decentraland to bring community members in the analysis depending on what’s needed to make the best assessment possible.
- Implementation would be faster than others.
- The community will have more context of the prospect grant to vote, mitigating the passing of grants that do not comply with their category impact metrics.
Cons:
- Centralization of grants selection and monitoring.
- GSS budget will be increased based on the needed capacity.
- This won’t mitigate whale-passing grants.
6. Keep selection of grants as it is: Maintain the selection process via community voting system, as it is now.
Pros:
- There is no need to implement a new flow.
Cons>
- There is no risk analysis.
- The possibility of funding projects that are not aligned with the vision of the DAO
- Wasting money and resources from the DAO until revocations in case they are not technically feasible.
- More policy over the projects and pressure from the community over the grantees.
- Grants Pre-Selection Committee (GPSC).
- Grants Selection Committee (GSC)
- Qualified voting
- Grant Feasibility Analysis
- Grant Support Squad Analysis
- Keep selection of grants as it is
- Invalid question/options
