by 0x247e0896706bb09245549e476257a0a1129db418 (LordLike)
SUMMARY
This proposal suggests giving the Revocations Committee the authority to initiate investigations into grants without waiting for input from the Grant Support Squad. This change aims to enhance responsiveness and grants accountability, addressing community concerns more proactively.
MOTIVATION
Currently, the Revocations Committee can only begin investigating a grant upon receiving arguments from the GSS. This limitation has resulted in delays in addressing grants involving bad actors or those failing to deliver on their promises. By allowing the Revocations Committee to initiate investigations independently, the DAO can take quicker action against misuse of funds or poor execution, ultimately protecting the DAO and communityâs interests and resources.
POSSIBLE SOLUTION
Allow the Revocations Committee to start grant investigations based on community alerts or their own observations, without needing preliminary findings from the GSS. This would involve revising the relevant articles in the Revocations Committee Framework (Art. 9 Procedure) to give these new powers.
Potential oversight mechanisms and specific criteria for initiating investigations will be refined based on community feedback in subsequent stages of the governance process.
VOTING OPTIONS
YES: Empower the Revocations Committee.
NO: Leave as it is.
This is a non-binding pre-proposal poll to assess community sentiment. If approved, feedback and insights will be solicited to refine and finalize the points.
Voting yes for this, but I would like to add that Revocations Committee members need to provide âproofâ for each of their individual votes. If valid proof of why they are voting to revoke or not revoke is not provided for each of their votes, then that member is automatically removed from the revocations committee. This proposal would give the RC more powers so additional âsafeguardsâ would be needed to make sure that the RC does not become corrupt, so this addition gives an automatic path for removing RC members that might act in bad faith in the future.
Hi @web3nit ! great initiative, there is always room for improvement in all the processes:slight_smile:
However, I would like to know the reasons behind âspeed the processâ
IMO, accelerating it could trigger more pressing and subjective, instead of take the time to analyze, gather information and make a report (with apreventive pause if itâs need it of course).
Also, in the past, the GSS was the team behind analyzing and ârevoking.â and the Idea of creating a revocations committee was to split that âpower.â But this poll will give all the âpowerâ to one team, and we will need to create another safeguard, as @szjanko mentioned.
We need to rethink how the grants are selected instead of giving more power to ârevokeâ. We need be proactive and not reactive.
Sometimes, the slow reaction of the GSS to investigate grants and the desire of DAO members for this to occur are the reasons behind this issue. Creating safeguards for balance is not a problem, and we can handle it considering three stage governance process. I will also help. I want to mention that this poll is non-binding, and we will definitely find a balance between GSS and RC!
We need to rethink how the grants are selected instead of giving more power to ârevokeâ.
We donât need a centralized group of people(Grants Council) who will select and dictate which grants should pass and which should not, thus avoiding community voting - this approach is reactive!
great! but could you give examples of slow reactions? this is feedback for us.
Btw, the vesting contract has a step of 30 days, which means there is no need to âreactâ because the grantee can´t release funds during those 30 days.
I donât want to point fingers, but if you search for the term âRevocations Committeeâ on Discord, you will find many examples, including the desire of DAO members to give more power to the Revocations Committee.
but you mentioned cases with slow reactions, so, could you point one? again, this is feedback to us and I believe that always be a room for improvement
I donât want to create drama over the exact names. Havenât you seen how often people talk about it⌠I just want to try propose some kind of more soft solutions besides a centralized grants council, which contradicts the decentralized spirit.
I think it would serve the purpouse of this proposal to give the exact timeframes mentioned as âslowâ otherwise itâs kinda hard to visualize to what extent this would speed things up.
Upon the proactive solution, itâs about gatekeeping grant requests prior voting (not replacing any voting. thereâs multiple layers) which would likely mitigate revocation processes. Again, this has nothing to do with centralization so you can repeat it as many times as you want and it wonât stick - itâs about having people without VP to participate in the decision making and having prior assessments - like many other DAOs do. We can even call it âDecentralized Councilâ.
Participation without VP requires a mature reputation system, which is still very raw in our DAO. Implementing such a system does not necessitate a centralized council to dictate grant approvals. We should avoid blindly copying others and focus on understanding and preserving the spirit of Decentraland.
This could be a good start towards addressing some of the issues this DAO faces. I can see this idea working well with the current revocation committee because they are honest and trusted individuals I have full confidence the current committee members always operate with the upmost integrity.
Only reason I hesitate to instantly vote yes is this thought. What happens when its time to vote on another committee member and RobL and his cabal forces a vote in for the candidate of their choice. Just like they did with the last 2 DAO committee votes. Currently 2/3 of the DAO Committee members have been forced through by Rob and other questionable voters, I am not saying anything bad about the candidates. I am just saying that the current voting process for DAO positions is flawed, A handful of voters should not be allowed to for force a vote for committee positions.
I think we need to fix our voting structure for accepting new committee members if we are going to start making these kinds of changes. Everyone has a right to vote on the candidate of their choice even RobL and frens but the opinion of ~5-10 people should not flip an entire communities vote only because they have more assets in their wallets.
I voted No on this because of that fact that Sin mentioned. Thereâs already been discussions about electing new members in this RC and other squads. With the results of the last committee election, this scares me. So I am hesitant to give more power to potential future candidates that may not have the same integrity as the current RC members. We need to fix the infrastructure before implementing new features (have we learned nothing from DCLâs past?).
I believe voting for members of any squad should be a different type of voting structure. It should be 1 proposal with each candidate as a vote. People should only be able to vote for 1 candidate (just like irl) and it should not be based on VP. Itâs crazy to me that elections have had each candidate as a separate proposal. Just like Grant Proposal updates, each Candidate could have a link like that to a page that describes them/pitches their position. It should be a 1:1 vote, no VP. You have a name = your vote counts. You donât have a name = your vote doesnât count. I think this is more than fair considering these are people we are electing to have power in this DAO. These elections donât happen often enough for this to devalue anyoneâs VP. Not only could this be monumental is establishing clear community sentiment in the committeeâs/squads, it can give us the data needed to fix all voting areas of the DAO.
So the mysoginist and racist JasonX gets to decide with his thousand names? Pretty sure many people have dozens of names spread across several addresses from the time back when it was 1 name per 1 address.
