by 0xaca8fbbdddfce169114f344d8ee739bde665f4f4 (Seanny)
TLDR: The grants program has shown to be a key aspect and fantastic addition to Decentraland, however, the time might be right to pause and review its current structure, identifying valuable lessons from its shortcomings. A pause in the grants program would allow us to do this; coupled with a period in which governance and community roadmaps can be actively prioritized.
Hey everyone! I know this post is long, however, this is likely one of the most important governance decisions being proposed to the DAO this year, and requires quite a bit of context to lay out the reasoning behind this proposal. I encourage you to read and debate, especially if this is a proposal that you fundamentally disagree with.
The reasoning behind this proposal is fundamental to the debate, which is one of the reasons why this post is so long. You can find rest of the content in the comments section below.
Contents:
-> The Current Grant System
-> The State of Our Treasury
-> The State of Our Community [IN COMMENTS]
-> General FAQs [IN COMMENTS]
The Current Grant System
With its inception dating back to May 2021, the Decentraland grant system has been one of the Metaverseâs most innovative, decentralized solutions to community-driven prioritization and community-led project management.
Since the approval of the first Tier 6 Grant in November 2021, the Decentraland grant system has seen an exponential increase in both interest and activity; with sharp inclines in grant volume and voter activity.
So far, the grants programme has contributed a total of $2.6 Million Dollars to community-led and backed initiatives. This multi-million dollar investment has been split into the following grant priorities:
Content Grants: $269,369, 20 Grants [Average: $13,468]
Platform Grants: $1,236,100, 14 Grants [Average: $88,293]
Community Grants: $596,300, 19 Grants [Average: $31,384]
Gaming Grants: $539,600, 12 Grants [Average: $44,967]
The total amount of grants accepted thus far stands at 65 grants. This means that as a DAO, on average, weâve been approving around one grant per week. 52% of these grants were grants over the size of $5,000 US dollars, with over 32% of the total grants approved being over the size of $50,000.
This exponential growth in DAO Activity has been coupled with some brilliant work conducted by our various governance squads, especially our grant support squad, who have actively been leading the application, implementation, and reporting of the DAOs grants for the last 8 months.
However, whilst this system has generated quite a few success stories over the last twelve months, we are now facing new growing pains and paradigms that are not currently described and defined in our governance systems. The lack of clear, community-approved accounting guidelines for grants, alongside governance âcode-of-ethicsâ/âbest-practiceâ guidelines, has already been applying unnecessary pressure to grantees and DAO members alike. Additionally, our lack of a roadmap and collective vision as to what should be prioritized in the DAO leads to frequent and unfortunate misunderstandings/disagreements between DAO members in the process of reasoning the value of a Grant Proposal, which in the long-term, can prove to be detrimental to the DAOâs ability to generate far-reaching consensus.
In short; the current grant system is a victim of its own success, and in the run-up to 2023, it would be sound and prudent to temporarily pause the program for a short âgrace-periodâ, which would allow us to assess, debate and review both the past, present and future of our grants system, with the aim of applauding our communityâs successes, and learning from our collective mistakes. This data-oriented approach towards better understanding the outcomes of the $2.6M US dollars we have collectively invested thus far will be fundamental in setting the foundations and understanding necessary to begin solid footing for a potential upgraded grants system, alongside a potential community-led roadmap for the DAO.
Treasury
One of the largest lessons we can learn from FTXâs collapse is that overexposing oneâs treasuries and assets to a single type of asset as your primary source of funding and liquidity, is a major risk.
Currently, our DAOâs vesting contract is actively releasing 222M MANA over a 10-year period. This vesting contract started 2/20/2020, and so far, has vested a total of 60,871,487 MANA as of 16/11/2022. From this 60,871,487 MANA, 48,870,797.432 MANA has been released, and 12,000,689.536 MANA remains releasable.
This means that DCL DAO has a total of 161,128,513 MANA left to use until the 20th of February, 2030.
As of 14th November 2022, the DAO holds the following funds:
Aragon Agent:
41,755,500 MANA | 18,437,056 USD,
21 ETH | 26,957 USD,
17 WETH | 21,686,
16,738 DAI | 16,749 USD,
2,607 USDC | 2,614 USD,
DAO Committee:
262,253 MANA | 115,797 USD,
62,849 DAI | 62,893 USD
8 ETH | 10,057 USD
8,488 USDC | 8,511 USD
1,428,019 MANA | 655,270 USD
7 WETH | 9,104 USD
56 DAI | 48 USD
29 MATIC | 27.43 USD
22 USDC | 20.60 USD
This amounts to a total of US Dollars 19,367,107, as of 14th November, 00:00 CEST Market Valuation. From this treasury of $19.3M USD Dollars; 99.1% of those assets are held in MANA, and only 0.9% of our assets are currently held in âotherâ tokens.
Currently, our grants programs are distributed in USD Value; meaning for each grant we approve, we usually sell the USD-Dollar Equivalent of MANA from our treasury to fund the said grants, which means the more grants we approve, the more sell pressure we are placing on MANA, as an asset.
As we increase sell pressure through the process of funding grants from our treasury, we open doors to potentially drop the price of MANA further, which further limits our available liquidity (in USD), and in turn places further pressure on both the treasury and the price of MANA as an asset.
Moreover, we currently lack a prudent, clear vision on how exactly we plan to use our funds as a community; with no clear prioritization, roadmap, or goals being set by the community on what we collectively wish to achieve from our grants program. Coupled with this, thereâs uncertainty surrounding how grants themselves should be accounted for, with an unclear direction being set on the financial reporting, due diligence, and overall compliance requirements for grantees (which is a fundamental best practice in most regulated industries).
The lack of a yearly budget, alongside discombobulated expectations across the community surrounding the âvalueâ the grants program should bring to the table, is not only a facet for severe catastrophic risk and potential mass-liquidation, but is also a sure-fire way of generating and accelerating community discord and societal fragmentation.
- Yes, we should pause the grants programme
- No, we should not pause the grants programme
- Invalid question/options