[DAO:e19e114] Create New Badges and Make Visible for Public

Governance
1

by 0xd4f1cab694c4424c4796549edbb9b489789f4df5 (TudaMoon)

Should the problem/opportunity outlined be refined and taken to the next level?

Problem Statement

Problem 1:
Currently, there is a lack of transparency for DAO voters on grantees with previous revoked grants.

Some grantees of revoked grants do deserve a second chance. However, that is why we can have badges on their name. This will give them a chance to share what happened or how they made a mistake in the past or whatever. Things happen.

The point of this is to make sure that DAO voters at least have the knowledge of the history of the grantee they are voting for.

Problem 2:
We have a lot of Decentraland DAO voters who have voted in favor of grants that have been revoked.

When a DAO voter has a previous history of voting for revoked grants, they should be recognized by other DAO members. They may still be credible, but it should be next to their name when they make comments that they have a record of voting for grants that are being revoked.

The point of this is to make sure that DAO voters at least have the knowledge of the history of other DAO voters who are commenting on the forum.

Proposed Solution

Solution 1: Show a Badge next to the Grantee’s name when a proposal is being made by them or if they are tagged in the proposal itself.
The new badges should be:

  • “Previously Revoked Grant”
  • “Previously Revoked Grant with Completed Successful Grant”
  • “Prevously Revoked Grant with Return Payment”

Solution 2: Show a Badge next to a DAO voter’s name when they comment on in the Decentraland Forum or if they are tagged in the proposal itself, or are proposing the proposal.
The new badges should be:

  • “Voted for 5 or more Revoked Grants”
  • “Voted for 10 or more Revoked Grants”
  • “Voted for 10 or more Successfully Completed Grants”
  • “Voted for 25 or more Successfully Completed Grants”

*Remember this is no fault of the voters, but it helps show their previous credibility of their judgment.

Target Audience/Customer Base

DAO Voters and Grantees

Why is this relevant now?

Credibility is completely relevant for future grants and this credibility system will keep check on the grantees and voters.

Of course anyone can make a new profile or new wallet, but reputation is usually looked at when a grant is being proposed. It makes it more difficult for people to be able to get a grant that shouldn’t get it and it helps hold voters accountable.

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

2

I think revokees should have to have some sort of indication that they have had a grant previously revoked. not sure this is it in practice. Voting yes but would like to see the badges more defined if passed to next level

3 Likes
3

I would propose that anyone that has previously received a grant from the DAO disclose that and link to any previous proposals in their grant application. It should be displayed on the grant proposal page, such as: Has this grantee or anyone on the team previously received a grant from the Decentraland DAO? Yes or No… and a link to any previous grants… this way the community can determine for themselves any previous value, or lack thereof, brought by the grantee and participants.

Just because a grant has not been revoked in the past, does not mean that the grantee brought value, or that their previous grant was a good one. Many bad grants were never revoked. Adding links to any previous grants in a grantee application, and on the proposal page, ensures that the community can judge for themselves whether a grantee deserves another grant or not.

2 Likes
4

I also wish it was WAY easier to see what projects have already been funded, and for how much. I hate having to ask when the influx of new proposals asking for money comes in: “Have you received a grant previously? If so, for how much?”

Or like Cheddar said, make it a mandatory part of the grant submission process to disclose that in any grant being written, so it’s frictionless, automated, and easy to access for all voters. It could be a series of questions:
Have you ever received funds from the DAO?
If yes, how many grants have you successfully passed?
How much funding have you received from the DAO?
Have you ever had a grant revoked from the DAO?

Have these ^ questions already baked into the grant submission form, so voters can very quickly take a “temperature check” of the grantee asking for funds.

4 Likes
5

Yeah I love these ideas. I open to some kind of credibility system. I think there’s been good suggestions made in these comments also. I want to get this conversation going for sure. So I have been thinking this through for like the last week or so, but only decided to write this today.

For the pitch, I want to have a more solidified answer and everyone’s suggestions are definitely welcomed. Happy to discuss more in detail. It may be best to keep the discussions here so everyone can look at all was said. But let me know if we should take it elsewhere also.

2 Likes
6

yes, yes, yes! All very important questions

7

I would love to see badges from people who have had grants succeed in the past to give them some credibility. (a positive way to note something)

8

I feel like DCL may need its own vendor rating system of some kind. (maybe just the DAO, or maybe the platform as whole) Kind of like any sales platform has, ebay, amazon but maybe more catered to our metaverse and DCL creator context.

1 Like
9

Yeah it makes the most sense. I am not sure why there are so many “No” votes.

10

IMO this will lead to ostracizing people who vote against the grain. In the same vein as not banning an individual just because he/she is persistently causing trouble, we should also not ‘flag’ individuals who decide that their vote belongs on the opposite side of the majority, for whatever reasons they may deem fit.

Badges are an icon for previous accomplishments and not a title to diminish an individual for their choices or failures.

1 Like
11

Can you help me understand which part of the proposed solutions would target a voter for not aligning with the majority?

how

12

I think you misunderstand the prop. This is only for grantees not voters.

13

One of the solutions is to give badges to people who vote for 5+ revoked grants. But even that isn’t going to be punishing someone who “goes against the majority”

15

This sounds like if I voted Yes for 5 to 10 grants that eventually get revoked for whatever reasons, I’ll get “badged” as having questionable credibility.

So is getting a badge going to be a bad thing as well? Might as well put a red flag beside the name if it’s going to be the case.

2 Likes
16

We need full, well thought out systems… Not patches, or half measures for new systems in DCL and DAO governance. I personally think it should mostly be focused on badges for people that are APPLYING for grants so the DCL community knows their history with grants… Giving people red badges for voting on 5-10 things that dont end up well in 1-2 years may make most active members in the voting community “red flagged.” Start with “positive” badges for people that reward behavior we want to see in the voting “community.”

17

I do agree with many of the points community members made. I feel having those badges would result in a form of public shaming / humiliation. I do agree with the point Canessa made- It would be ideal to have some sort of UI implementation on the grant requests where it shows how much funds an individual had received in the past, with links to the proposals. I think it can assist in determining the decision whether to vote for a grant or not.

1 Like
19

You are correct. If you vote on grants that consistently get revoked through our tedious revocation process then yes you get a badge. As a DAO, we are all individually responsible for how we vote. If you cant take responsibility for your vote. Then go elect a politician to make those rules for you. This is Web3 where freedom comes with responsibility.

20

No public shaming is what we have now. It is the cause of many of the arguments we currently have. You as a voter and Grantee will be responsible for the badges you get which means if you vote in favor of a grant, it is up to you to follow it through. If you don’t pay attention to their updates or anything, you are responsible for the problem that exists currently. Voting for grants without following up on them is the ultimate issue here. It’s easy to spend money when it isn’t yours and you don’t feel responsible for the grants you are voting for…

If this gets implemented, we now have to pay attention to the grants we vote for. I already foresee someone bringing up the question of voter participation. We don’t need numbers, we need quality. If people are too afraid to vote on the grant, it shows it probably shouldn’t reach quorum or go through. Voter Participation will increase when we have honest grants and honest voting.

What this badge system does is ultimately deter people from voting on questionable grants. If it is a good idea and good grant, wouldn’t you want to vote on it and push it through?

21

I see the point you’re alluding to. However, I don’t agree this is the route we should go. I think a simple UI/UX interface highlighting certain parameters (# of grants received in the past, amount, revoked etc) would suffice and help make better informed decisions. I don’t think it would be a heavy lift to incorporate as well.

22

Ok that’s fair, and maybe that solution is better. I am not the one to say. However I am challenging you to bring action upon your idea. I am getting tire of making suggestions and getting shut down by better solutions, when a lot of the time, there is no action being taken by the people giving the better solutions. I am not going to keep relying on these squads or committees who claim they will get to it. This is a top priority as this is ruining the culture, the integrity and monetary value of the DAO.

Everyone has had 6 months from the pause and this has not been a focus it seems as it is still happening. So I am challenging you and others for action, even if it is proposing a similar bidding and tendering proposal like this. Because this needs to be assigned, not just talked about.

1 Like