Voting no as I believe this proposal comes from a place of saying People didnt understand my grant so they voted no. Many times when people vote no the grantee says oh well you just dont understand the proposal. This has proven to be untrue and in most cases and is condescending and egocentric. If voters do not understand the prop is up to the proposer to explain it simply. There are already tests to be a dcl verified partner to show coding/ design/ consultation knowledge which very few people have taken. A main point of decentralization is everyone has a voice. If a prop requires tech knowledge the proposer should be able to explain in simple enough terms how it benefits the platform.
No - This would exclude many voters from voicing their opinion. Not everyone has the same access to education or the same learning style, and it is proven that some just are not good at test taking even if they are well-informed about the issue. Others may be challenged with a language barrier or translation issues. Voter participation is already low, and this would only discourage more people from voting. In addition, how will this prevent corruption? It isn’t like someone can’t phone a friend for the answer.
No, this is elitist and against the spirit of the DAO.
If anything, we would require it more from grant requestors than grant voters, and I see no reason why people would actually learn something over just clicking the clearly correct/googleable answers to continue doing what they prefer regardless.
Can you please explain in detail how your proposal avoids corruption? Have you ever paid, applied, and have to take education courses in order to obtain a professional license? What research have you done that lead you to these conclusions? What languages will you be offering? Web 3 is supposed to be inclusive, yet we seem to be doing to opposite here with what you are proposing, by keeping people out. If we feel that “education” is important, maybe we can look to the other DCL grants that have already taken 6 figures in funds to educate the DCL community. Can we help educate people about how important it may be to get more builders in DCL with a better builder? I see this as more reasons for people to leave DCL or less reasons to enter. (There are already tons of barriers to entry for DCL since it isn’t on mobile yet) I think educating the DCL community on what is important for the platform as a whole vs individual creators is important in the long run. I dont see almost a single thing this poll does to accomplish anything positive for DCL. What will your latest Sandwich game grant offer DCL that DCL didnt have before? Since you are wanting to start some trends here and education, we should probably talk about them… Should DCL pay for scenes and former grants to upgrade to SDK7? How many Millions of dollars should DCL spend on this? Should we open up a new category just for SDK 7 upgrades? I love golfcraft, but the sammich game seems like a waste of DAO funds and to be focused on a couple users vs the whole of the “platform”… the DAO voting category that it was posted in. (since we are bringing up education) Sorry Pablo, I was a huge fan until your recent grant and now this… Idk how your real life is going, but please dont let it hurt the future of DCL and everyone else here. Thank you!
I would prefer that the proposals be catered to the community as a whole in their explanation, instead of large factions of the community not being able to vote on certain aspects because they lack education. As illustrated in the process of the GNU grant, Pablo was able to gain the support of those who initially did not understand his proposal, by explaining it more in depth. Also, those who lack extensive knowledge can rely on the knowledge and experience of their peer voters, ask them questions and have them explain their reasoning for voting a certain way… everyone should have a right to cast their vote.
However I do believe there is an issue of a largely inexperienced body of voters, especially on topics of finance, in charge of disbursing millions of dollars without even consulting with subject matter experts (SMEs).
I have led working groups where together we crafted proposals for base commanders and generals to review and make changes to military policy, we were talking about things like remodeling barracks for single soldiers and improving relocation processes for overseas moves. These were simple things… and we still consulted with lawyers, and other SMEs for hours before putting anything down on paper or voting. It is weird to me that we do not have a panel of experts here to advise us and I think foundation could have done better in that respect when forming a DAO.