Just imagine the caption is IMPROVE CONTENT QUALITY even after getting 330k in grants he is not able to improve the quality, these people trolling DCL TROLL he is posting facts abt Kevin’s NFT purchases from the grant money. The DCL DAO really needs to work on the process of stopping such scam proposals. On his first 240K money grab, when the community asked questions about “what you did with previous grant money” Kevin deleted the proposal. He acts like he is doing something really next level He claims he will get 100,000 people here. Can He sign a document what if he is not able to do so???
1 Like
Have you seen me voting yes on this proposal? What are you talking about?
I’m not voting for anything. I’m tired. The DAO turned into people attacking each other and making Twitter threads. It’s a representation of how fucked up is our world when it comes to politics.
This whole DAO drama general behaviour is a distraction, we are losing time. Instead of saying ‘no’, giving some arguments, and moving forward, people want to spend time here on pointless discussions. The reasons are more than obvious: some people never tried to build anything and the only thing they know is doing this.
I won’t be spending more time on this response. Hope we as a community can stop contributing to all these toxic situations. I want to focus my energy on improving Decentraland.
3 Likes
Less hating more creating. I wish this comment section was more constructive instead of focused on smearing and tearing down.
I say we give The DCL Report a chance and since this proposal is so controversial, we use it as an opportunity to put our grant revocation system to the test.
I dont think anyone doubts kevins drive in this project. I get the sense “no voters” are mainly concerned that this grant money wont translate to new users. Maybe they DCL Report can set a roadmap of expected youtube views or shares per month and if those goals arent met then the grant can be revoked.
The dao is building a system for safegaurding funds via revocation. Lets use the system and stop pretending passing a grant is all or nothing.
Okay @Tobik with all due respect this is not attack on Kevin, the DAO is being used by people like Kevin. When a guy keep on putting proposals one by one that is okay for you but if community questions his intentions and what he has done with previous grant money that’s TOXIC for you. This is the time where we need to speak about such grants.
You talking about building ask him what he has build with such huge amount of money just a youtube channel with no views some paid media articles about him and a fake twitter with bot followers. In the beginning he sold 999 badge I’m sure people wasted money, also getting no value in return just some shit coin in return REPORT TOKEN.
DAO hold no responsibility to feed these people and their fake lifestyle. People don’t want to write in forum coz all are being neutral coz they will put grants too. Im not a big fan of @Canessa but I thank her for being fearless and speak on such proposals without thinking about the consequences. Kevin blocked canessa coz she wrote a factual reply on his rants on twitter that he is leaving DCL report bla bla bla.
On the other hand, Meta Trekkers lost its reputation entirely after the community discovered scams and politics that he has been doing in the name of his NFTs and Beattrekkers.
1 Like
@ile have u seen someone come back and revoked grants, where were you when he already has taken huge sum of money and still posts a grant of “Support reporters to IMPROVE QUALITY CONTENT” u are talking about chance, He has taken so much and gave nothing back. Preserving history LOL many are doing that for free on their socials.
1 Like
U really need to check comments on his previous proposals @ile making NFT purchases from grant money.
1 Like
“A Chance?”
They have had 2 grants already and nothing has come out of it.
2 Likes
Today we had our Town Hall meeting and thank everyone who came! https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1OdJrzdVWnqJX
I would recommend you read my reply again. I’m not talking about anyone specifically. I’m not defending Kevin or attacking the other side. I’m just pointing out the general toxicity of the DAO lately.
Also, this is another reason why we have all this toxicity. People DON’T READ and they MAKE SPECULATIONS based on what they think. Why not contact others in private before doing a statement? You don’t know what I think about this proposal because you don’t live inside my brain.
People don’t know how to receive feedback without being aggressive, some others invent stuff and others want to make Twitter drama. The good news is that we all make mistakes and some people are starting to learn from this whole thing. Let’s all move in that direction.
2 Likes
@KevinClark Are you open to constructive criticism?
1 Like
I appreciated your apology and much more professional reply to @canessa who has a complete right to express an opinion without harsh retribute. I listened to your Town Hall on Twitter playback and heard an informative tone and an openness with all questions. These are great steps in the right direction!
In my opinion it appears that there could be a potential conflict of interest happening here. While I strongly agree that the reporters should be compensated, paid personnel should not have the ability to vote on a proposal that will benefit them financially. Again, this is my opinion, and any constructive feedback is welcome.
3 Likes
Also, it would have been nice if he didn’t block all the people from his twitter space that he didn’t want there. I couldn’t attend. As a reporting agency that claims to be decentralized, seems to make censorship a priority. My constructive criticism is to end censorship and do fair reporting. Will you own the truth or only share your propaganda?
1 Like
I agree with DedHeadJ here, I think it’s a conflict of interest to vote on a proposal that pays you, especially if it has not been passed by the community first.
2 Likes
Skipping past all the negativity above to say thank you @KevinOnEarth for your commitment to the platform. Voting yes in the hopes that you may keep up your efforts with us.
A heartfelt thank you from everyone on the DCL Report team Doug; we love DCL, as DCL born metaverse citizens we will do our very best to serve the community! <3
1 Like
@DedHeadJ makes a good point here… I have a strong military background and experience in distribution of funds. In my experience… anyone who stands to benefit from a disbursement would be required to abstain from participating in the voting process.
However, I believe that it is common practice in DCL DAO, as I have seen more than a few proposals where those who will be receiving the funds are on the voters list.
So what is the community consensus here: Should those who stand to benefit (even in the smallest amounts) from a proposal be able to vote on it? How would we verify that none of the voters stand to benefit?
Respectfully, people should be concerned with the community recourse of their vote. As a public voting process this acts as a check and balance between you and the community. If you don’t stand behind your vote, don’t vote. You’re not required to defend your position but people are also entitled to their opinions of your actions.
1 Like
Yes your majesty! I will listen to your orders.
Voting in a direct conflict of interest will lead to Centralization. Centralization will kill the brand of Decentraland and will make any progress made obsolete. Conflict of Interest is one of the most critical rules we have to enforce to remain Decentralized. Otherwise it is a slippery slope of one grant passed here, one grant passed there, to owning millions of MANA to controlling the outcome of the Decentraland DAO. It will be our downfall if we do NOT stop it now.
To be Honest, current DAO members have said we have a committee that would stop a centralized entity from doing that, however that centralized committee to fight against a centralized power would literally make Decentraland look like a joke. Revocation of Grants for conflict of interest is not a current means for revoking a grant. So that committee enacting those powers of denying the grant for that reason when it hasn’t done it before, would look like a centralized and unfair use of power. If we just made a rule forbidding the voting of conflict of interest, this would not be an issue.
1 Like
How about stop bossing people around? I can act as I choose. Thank you!