On the Proposed Solutions

[Ozymandias]

A swarming ocean of ideas

@ginoct

we need to stop voting on Grants and B&T, as they have become a honeypot for bad actors and are threatening the project’s long-term sustainability

@Canessa

we need to give the resources to qualified creators and let them do what they do best, build.

@Canessa

grants will no longer require the lobbying of community members

@palewin

A Projects Review Committee could be created alongside different community actors and specialists, would help refine, select, and vote on (or somehow prioritize) whether projects are feasible and valuable with the coordination of the Op-Arm’s internal team.

@web3nit

Whales will impose vetoes on decisions they disagree with, perpetuating the imbalance.

@Tobik

Ideally, I would eliminate the mechanisms that allow the community to request funding for personal projects and instead focus solely on governance-related functions and critical aspects like the catalyst network or linked wearables.

@yemel

I support exploring XP (experience power) to represent active users and creators in Decentraland (instead of stakeholders). XP could give users influence over product prioritization and content curation like POIs, NAMEs, and Places.

@yemel

However, we can’t yet include XP in governance due to risks like hacks, bots, and manipulation. This concept needs thorough testing before it can be considered for governance.

@yemel

VP holders retain control over significant decisions

@lastraum

I would suggest an Exploration Committee

[Ozymandias]

[Placeholder 4 for further analysis]