DAO Grants Program - Ideas on Grants Selection Process

After hearing the community sentiment, key stakeholders, and the Core Units regarding how we can mitigate toxic lobbying and how the DAO can ensure a higher-quality investment in projects, the Grant Support Squad has gathered a few ideas that we’d like to bring to discussion to hear your thoughts:

A) Grants Selection Committee: This committee, selected by the community for a set duration, will be responsible for reviewing and selecting Grant applications, and their work would be remunerated.
Following the framework of creating the Revocations Committee and the DAO Committee, we would establish the Grants Selection Committee (GSC). The GSC’s primary role is to decide which projects receive funding, considering factors like feasibility, team experience, contribution to the DAO, and impact. The committee should be diverse and qualified, comprising community members with expertise in areas like SDK late stable version, blockchain, marketing, finance, 3D modeling, governance and content curation. Additional desirable qualifications include previous grantee experience, involvement in the DAO, and participation in governance proposals.

Pros:

  • Mitigate the passing of grants that are not technically feasible or that do not comply with its category impact metrics
  • This Committee would aim to ensure a more structured, professional, and efficient evaluation process for grants in Decentraland, involving specific knowledge in decision-making and ensuring that proposals are reviewed and aligned with the DAO objectives.
  • Mitigate whale-passing

Cons:

  • Will have a cost to the DAO, to be defined if this option is chosen.
  • Selection will be based on community voting (hiring process), and there is a risk of whale-passing the members who are selected.

B) Qualified Voting: Generate a verification -based on a criteria to be defined- of community members qualified to vote on grant proposals.

Pros:

  • The community will have more context of the prospect grant to vote, mitigating the passing of grants that are not feasible or that do not comply with their category impact metrics.
  • There is no cost to the DAO for people who engage in voting for grants.

Cons:

  • There is no framework designed yet for this type of contribution, so implementation might take longer than other options.
  • A scoring system to measure how much weight voters have will be needed.

C) Grant Feasibility Analysts: a group of people selected by the community for a set duration, will make a report on the prospect grants proposal page on its technical feasibility, compliance on impact metrics under their category, and then the community would vote as it is now.

For implementing this option, the prospect Grant analyzers need to consider factors like feasibility, experience, remuneration, contribution to the DAO, and expected impact. The members should be diverse and qualified, comprising community members with expertise in areas like SDK late stable version, blockchain, marketing, finance, 3D modeling, governance and content curation.

Pros:

  • The community will have more context of the prospect grant to vote, mitigating the passing of grants that are not feasible or that do not comply with their category impact metrics.
  • We would nurture an economy of DAO contributors by remunerating their work

Cons:

  • Will have a cost on the DAO
  • There is no framework designed yet for this type of contribution, so implementation might take longer than other options.
  • This won’t mitigate whale-passing grants.

D) Grant Support Squad Analysis: The Grant Support Squad will make a report on the prospect grants proposal page on its technical feasibility, compliance on impact metrics under their category, and then the community would vote as it is now. To implement this option, we should amplify the capacity of a squad.

Pros:

  • Experience in Decentraland to bring community members in the analysis depending on what’s needed to make the best assessment possible.
  • Implementation would be faster than others.
  • The community will have more context of the prospect grant to vote, mitigating the passing of grants that do not comply with their category impact metrics.

Cons:

  • Centralization of grants selection and monitoring.
  • GSS budget will be increased based on the needed capacity.
  • This won’t mitigate whale-passing grants.

The Grant Support Squad along with other Core Units will work on a Governance Proposal to move forward towards the selected idea, to design the framework which might include a pause in the grants program for its implementation. It will be iterated and shaped along the governance steps with community input.

1 Like

It was shawn several times that the malicious actors in the DAO don’t care at all about analysis and reports of grants feasibility, just look at the Decentraland X grant…

Qualified Voting and Grants Selection Committee is just centralization of voting power in an even smaller group of individual than today and won’t solve any “lobbying” issues.

4 Likes

Of all these options, C), D) are the closest one to my vision. This is something similar to what I submitted in the DAO poll:

Create a decision-making framework for grants that raises the quality and accountability of the Grants Program.

For example, this framework could involve a specialized squad or committee that posts non-binding recommendations/opinions in the grant comments section. These recommendations would be based on a comprehensive set of evaluation criteria designed to ensure that each Grant proposal aligns with the DAO’s strategic objectives and meets other relevant benchmarks for DAO’s standards. Here are some guiding questions the squad/committee could consider during the evaluation process as part of a decision-making framework for grants:

  • Will this proposal benefit Decentraland and the DAO in the short and long term ?
  • Are the project’s goals aligned with those of Decentraland and the DAO ?
  • Does the proposal provide concrete plans that will benefit Decentraland and the DAO ?
  • Is the requested grant amount reasonable for achieving the goals outlined in the grant proposal and comparable with market rates and other grants ?
  • Is the estimated timeframe for project completion realistic given the scope ?
  • Does the grantee or project team possess the necessary skills and experience to successfully execute the project, based on available data and past performance ?
  • How substantial is the project, and what contributions has it already made or is likely to make to Decentraland and the DAO, based on available data and plans ?

The other options like “Grants Selection Committee” and “Qualified Voting” do NOT align with DECENTRALIZATION, in my opinion.

How would the proposed committee memebers be selected, how long would members hold office, and how would they be replaced?

I think we really need to nail this in a fair and as automated way before we create more committees

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and questions regarding the proposed options. Your feedback is valuable to us.

In response to @HPrivakos
Great point. Let´s imagine the following scenario: The Grants Selections Committee (GSC), whose members are professionals in their fields, makes a report with the arguments that a prospect grant should not pass because of several concerns, which could be technical. After that, the bad actors vote yes and the proposal passes.
However, the DAO has a process to mitigate that, and the Revocations Committee will use the Grants Selection Committee report to sustain their final decision and revoke the vesting contract, which is more expensive than stopping it in a timely manner: on the one hand, the people to work on the revocation, and also the contract starts vesting so that money will also be lost until that happens.

Also, this could happen a few times, but along the way, this will tend to zero. In a best-case scenario, only professional and valuable projects are funded, and no one would have to revoke a vesting contract.
Using your example: is what happened.

In response to @web3nit
It’s great that we are in sync!

In response to @ile :
Great questions!
The community would be selected through the DAO hiring process (open call - public interviews - vote), just like the DAO Committee process was agreed and executed in the past. Regarding the period that the members would be in office, we thought that 12 months would be a good period, and that they can be re-elected for 1 period. After that, the member has to wait 1 period to apply again (like revocations Committee members). Of course, we would love to develop these timeframes with the community in future steps of a governance proposal.
Regarding automatization, how do you think that it can be achieved?

We appreciate your input and look forward to further discussions and collaborations within the community.

Warm regards,