Thank you so much for your thoughtful feedback and for taking the time to engage in this discussion. I really appreciate the effort you’re putting into considering the bigger picture and raising important points.
Regarding your concerns, I’d be glad to respond in line with the agreements made during the Lisbon summit.
In response to your point:
“The proposed structure creates 1) an executive branch 2) an elected council to govern the executive branch. The DAO (community) becomes TWICE removed from decision making. The Executive Arm (decision making) → The DAO Council → The DAO (community) - this is how far removed the community will be from decision making.”
We collectively agreed on a structure where:
- The community would elect —through the existing hiring process— for the council members (Draft proposal).
- The elected council members would be responsible for guiding the Executive Arm, ensuring alignment with the DAO’s mission (I’d love to move away from the term “govern” here and focus more on their role as strategic guides).
What does this mean in practice?
The Executive Arm, led by the Executive Director, will present the annual planning and budgeting to manage the grants, handle strategic initiatives and oversee daily operations. The Executive Arm’s primary focus is to ensure that these functions are fully aligned with the DAO’s mission while remaining accountable to the community. If the Executive Director fails to meet these expectations, they can be replaced.
Addressing “The DAO becoming Twice removed from decision-making”
I believe it’s the opposite. The community’s decision-making power remains intact, because:
First, the community elects the council members. Once in place, these elected members work with the Executive Arm. However, the community retains veto power over critical decisions made by the council. For example, if the Executive Director presents the annual plan and budget to the council for approval, the community has the ability to veto this decision if it doesn’t align with their expectations. This mechanism ensures the community remains at the core of decision-making.
Regarding your questions from 1 to 4
The Executive Director is tasked with addressing these questions by developing a clear strategy, which will then need to be approved by the council. As mentioned, the community can veto decisions if necessary. These are valid concerns, and it is the Executive Director’s responsibility to transparently request feedback from the community when developing these strategies.
Regarding questions 5:
The DAO Committee is an executive entity that works according to the result of the governance proposal. and In the case that you mentioned, they are doing what the community voted here: Decentraland DAO Treasury Diversification ( Phase A )
Correct me if I´m wrong (@rizk ), please.
Also, the mission of the DAO is being decided in this current process.
Operational Oversight
I fully agree with your point that operational oversight should be 100% transparent and ideally on-chain. However, this transition might take time, and we should explore methods to make it happen gradually. In the meantime, we can implement a clear and accessible front page or dashboard to allow the community to track operations day-to-day, ensuring transparency from the start.
Once again, thank you for your valuable feedback and for engaging in this important conversation. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on how we can refine these ideas together!