The grantee does not possess the necessary skill to achieve the milestones.
Abstract
Lot of people who voted abstain thought it was equivalent to no.
Motivation
LandLordDAO voted for his own grant, which represented a third of the yes votes.
Yes votes represented only 17% of total VP used in that grant (17% no and 66% abstained)
He doesn’t know how to achieve his goal or use MidJourney as revealed by InJesterr DMs
My two cents in terms of tgovernance process.
Actually, there is no framework to move forward with this proposal, and do it would be a bad precedent for the DAO because:
if a grant could be revoked because the grantee voted on their own grant proposal is still in the governance process: Invalidating and/or Revoking Grants due to Self-Voting (CoE Addendum)
If this proposal is escalated to governance, I recommend establishing clearly if the proposal is retroactive or not. @Fehz
Whether the grantee has or does not have the necessary skills to accomplish what they promised is not a cause of revocation since the grantee can hire someone with the necessary skills.
The difference between yes, no, and abstaining during the vote is not a cause for revoking the vesting contract.
I recommend setting up a framework for that.
Last but not least, only the Revocations Committee can request to revoke a vesting contract, or the SAB in cases of security. The DAO Committee can´t do it through a governance proposal as is being intended here. At least is not established.
That grant wasn´t revoked because of the governance proposal.
You can read the reasons that the Revocations Committee published there.
Thank you for mentioning it.
The DAO Committee is a group of three trusted individuals who have been selected by the community to hold keys in a multi-sig wallet. This multi-sig is responsible for enacting any passed votes with a binding action, like funding a Grant , banning a name, adding or removing a POI, implementing a Governance proposal or adding a Catalyst node
I don’t think there is any valid argument to invalidate the Committees ability to enact passed governance proposals around the funding of grants via onchain action.
The Governance proposal passed on the 18th of July while the revocation committee published their result on the 20th of July.
I do think Governance proposals to revoke grants are valid.
Governance proposal are binding for on-chain action that can be done by the DAO Committee.
A revocation is an on-chain transaction that can be done by the DAO Committee.
We already went through this with Decentraland X.
It shouldn’t be the primary way, but it definitely is a valid way to revoke a grant.
The SAB only cares about protecting the Decentraland core smartcontracts and the core treasury, it doesn’t care at all if the DAO give a 240k grant to a scammer, it’s not the role of the SAB to overview this.
They don’t even have any control over the DAO Committee multisig or vesting contracts.
These contracts are created by the DAO Committee on behalf of the DAO, and are overseen by the SAB to prevent any risk of monetary loss due to vulnerabilities or mistakes made by the Committee.
The SAB doesn’t oversee any grants vesting smartcontracts at all. We (DAO Committee) did do mistakes and lost some money early on, and the SAB never cared about those.
(Example of those mistakes are creating a vesting contract using Tether, which is not fully following the ERC20 protocol so we couldn’t withdraw Tether from that contract and had to contact Tether to get back the fund, which they kept 10%)
You might have misunderstood my point. It’s not that we don’t have time to work on this grant. Rather, our time is precious, and we don’t want to waste it on unnecessary arguments. We will update our delivery next week, and if the community wants it, we will deliver on time without delay. Thank you.
I say No on revoking. What is the point of people voting on things when then it just gets voted out week or so later. How about instead communicate. What we would prefer more that way proposals can pivot to make everyone in the community happy rather then voting yes on something then no then having to rep-itch again etc congesting the DAO forums. If you don’t like something say why and if you don’t say why then I will leave you with the wise words of our modern day intelect Dr. Phil: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/09Ry_tzzDcQ
I personally wanted to abstain from voting in this because I did not to vote in favor of denying someone that wants to contribute to the platform the opportunity to do so, but after looking into the proposal i cannot over look the fact that the person that proposed it self voted and their Voting Power makes up around a 3rd of the voting power needed to get the proposal passed.
