Limit monetary allowances to Grant proposals This proposal has been PASSED by a DAO Committee Member (0xfe91c0c482e09600f2d1dbca10fd705bc6de60bc)

Thanks for linking the channel in which this will be discussed moving forward @JETTY :sunglasses:

Hi all! Now that this poll has finished, the DAO Facilitation team would like to direct further inquiries to the Working Group established on the DAO Discord. [monetary-allowance](https://discord.com/channels/894658869391933540/1002232310319566959)

Limit monetary allowances to Grant proposals This proposal is now in status: FINISHED. Voting Results: * Yes, limit monetary allowances to grant proposals 96% 5,198,595 VP (56 votes) * No, don't limit dao allowances 0% 0 VP (1 votes) * Invalid question/options 4% 227,408 VP (5 votes)

so you want to limmit any DAO money to grants only? Sounds pretty limiting. What about advertising? Someone has to apply for an advertising grant? Curious to see what next revision looks like

@ginoct thanks for your response! As it looks like this will pass, I think we can take that as support for the idea in general. HP has said he'll open a working group in the DAO (or please do if you are able), and we can have a discussion there about the nuances before creating the next proposal step. I've talked to quite a few people in the last few days and there are a lot of good ideas, so I feel confident we can make a proposal that doesn't hamstring legit requests while still preventing abuse of the system.

Voting invalid question here because I believe that this is a really sensitive issue and needs to be taken seriously. The Grants program as some already said has a clear definition of tiers and max amount of money to be granted. I believe that the issue is when money is requested via a different mechanism than the community grants. I get that sometimes a specific proposal requires a one-time payment (Like the Blender Development Fund sponsorship) or a bigger amount of money (Like the DG one) and we end up bending the rules, or we do a one-time transaction when it should be a vesting contract or the proposals are published under a Governance process. I feel that we might be needing a category for Treasury management or finance stuff that is super hard to pass in terms of VP but has a short voting time. This could be useful for this kind of situation (And maybe capping a max amount of money to be involved in a proposal is a good idea), also could be useful for a swap or any kind of transaction that could preserve or shield the DAO treasury from a market crash or something like that. My suggestion would be to open up a working group or at least discuss it a bit more on the forum/Discord and then craft a better-structured proposal.

I agree with this, we should make sure when the full proposal comes out that it's worded accurately, but I do agree this topic should be addressed.

Voted yes, as should everyone else. Wording can be addressed to make sure its 100% clear what the purpose of this proposal is. 1) Governance proposals are binding. THEY MUST BE ENACTED. 2) DG abused this in order to bypass the grant proposal system. There is nothing stopping them (or another entity) from using this loophole again. Let's not stress over the use of 1 word in a pre-proposal poll. That can be corrected in the draft proposal and Dax can get the help of a working group to make sure everything is clear. This should be an INSTANT yes for anyone who cares about the future of Decentraland. It's an urgent and pressing matter.

Changing the wording from "limit" to "restrict" fixes your concern.

Hi! Voting "Invalid question". You are proposing to limit allowances to Grant proposals, but they are already limited. What you should be proposing is to limit allowances for **Governance Process Proposals**, that was the kind of proposal used by DG. https://docs.decentraland.org/decentraland/dao-userguide/#creating-a-proposal

Voting YES, because in my opinion it's not ok to receive 4x the maximum grant size by not even reaching 8m votes (wich is needed to receive the current max grant of 240k)