There is no way to pause a vesting contract with the current smartcontract, but a vesting contract can always be recreated in the future if needed.
4 Likes
Hi Pablo! Thank you so much for taking the time to review this poll.
The focus of the Proposal is to expose to the community that there are practices not yet defined in the terms and conditions which have raised concerns. So, to make sure we guarantee an efficient use of the community treasury, we want to ask the community who should decide to revoke a Grant.
This poll doesn’t mean that, if we detect some of these practices, the Grant will be automatically revoked without previous study of their cases.
And the second case:
We are aware of the legal/tax problems that any grantee could have in their country about crypto currency. But, if a Grantee can´t release the funds for that reason or at least hasn’t found a way to do it, it shows that they don’t have the ability to manage the funds, and that’s the concern. When the community approves a grant, they are approving a team that can deploy the project. And it’s important that each team has the ability to manage funds with the regulations of their own country.
1 Like
Thank you Pablo!, As a first stage, we wanted to understand what the community thought about who should make the decision and the process will be designed with these persons involved. Obviously once we have this first step decided with those input.
1 Like
As the Grant Support Squad is doing its best to involve the community on delicate cases such as revocation of a grant based on practices that raise concerns, I wonder in which way @MetaArchs are you suggesting that this poll or its options are invalid (maybe @Seanny can help us?). Governance power should be used with commitment and responsibility. It is in the spirit of the squad to involve the community as much as we can in our process design, so the question remains: who should be involved in the process of revoking a grant?
I hope we can understand your take on this, so we can move in a direction that takes your argument into account to make it better in the future.
Heyhey!
Sorry for the delay in replying, however, I’ve been traveling and internet has been scarce!
Overall, I want to applaud the Grant Support Squad for the work done on this proposal, and I wanted to extend my gratitude to the three of you for starting this conversation and putting these ideas together (@Zino @yararasita @palewin)
There are some fantastic points and ideas being shared here, however, I do believe @AwedJob said it best when they pointed out there’s two things being addressed by this poll:
- Decide on how to revoke a grant
- The practices not yet defined in the terms and conditions which have raised concerns.
I believe the reasons for revoking a grant, and the process in which grants are revoked should be two separate discussions, run on two separate polls (which would allow more users to contribute to the underlying specificities of the proposal, instead of having two overlapping conversations/debates).
As an example; I feel like it would be much easier for us to agree on the reasons for revoking a grant, as opposed to the methods in which those ideals would be ‘enforced’. This will at least give us shared guiding documents/principles which we can start using as foundational building blocks for a code-of-ethics system for grants, and an overall better understanding, from a communal perspective, on what best practices we should actively look for (and employ) into each and every grant.
There are a lot of moving parts to this discussion, and I feel it would be best for us to be thorough and laser-focused on each point.
Hope my reasoning makes sense to you! 
1 Like
Yes, the smart contract can be changed for future proposals in order to make improvements.
I’m not sure if it’s is good idea to change the terms on already closed agreements, I think current vesting contracts should fit to the terms that were defined when the proposal was passed: Receiving Grants | Decentraland
1 Like
Procedure to revoke a grant
This proposal is now in status: REJECTED.
Voting Results:
- Community decides 1% 514 VP (6 votes)
- Dao committee decides 19% 1,075,671 VP (49 votes)
- New committee decides 9% 535,703 VP (14 votes)
- Do nothing 0% 0 VP (0 votes)
- Invalid question/options 71% 4,023,764 VP (4 votes)
Hi everyone,
Thank you for taking the time and devoting attention to give feedback on this proposal. The Grant Support Squad is constantly working to improve the support to the community and your words helped a lot.
Based on your input and our research, we’ve decided to divide the poll into two, which are the following:
-
Who should make the decision of revoking grants?
a).Community Decides;
b) DAO committee decides;
c). New committee decides;
d). Do nothing. - A second poll might be held to define the method of procedure, the actors defined previously on poll 1 discuss the methodology, and document this procedure publicly to give clarity to the community.
About the list of practices that raise concerns, our proposal is to raise these concerns on a case by case basis to the entity defined in poll 1.
Thanks again for your committed contributions!
@yararasita , @palewin & Zino.
late to the party here on the forum! But question for you @lastraum @DrGreenthumb when you say “decided on by the DAO” do you mean this should be a straight up DAO Vote?
Not sure of that context, but a proposal is a contract IMO between the dao team and the person(s) submitting the proposal. Therefore, I feel it is the duty of the dao team to check progress and revoke funds if performance has not been met by the other party.
1 Like
one day all this will be automated on contract with stipulations in code. We are so early
Hi friends! After a nurturing discussion on the poll about the procedure to revoke a grant, the community saw it necessary to split the poll into two separate questions, so this is the new Poll. We’d love to hear your opinion regarding the decision making. Here’s the new proposal: Who should make the decision of revoking grants?