I'm not even sure Lordy worked on the docs. What about RobL?

This proposal further protects bad grants while doing nothing to address the communities's ability to circumvent the GSS and activate a revocation review without them. If @web3nit actually cared about "decentralization" and not just protecting bad actors, this would be designed in a way that actually empowers the community.

I didnt get the opportunity to vote on the other one. Was browsing the dao and was shocked to see this again, so shooting my shot. I've been taking my time thinking about each vote and this makes sense. The community should be making these decisions on behalf of DCL. Whoever thought of this idea, I really think its clever. Love the long term vision. :brain:

Voting no because I don't feel it is appropriate for this to be resubmitted after not being passed on the first round. Especially without transparency that it is a resubmission and why.

The community is already allowed to revoke grants thru the proposal process.. if the revocations committee decides not to revoke we can do it ourselves.. if they decide to revoke, after a formal complaint, investigation by GSS, and final decision by revocations committee, I would see no reason to reinstate a grant or have a vote on something we as a community empowered them to do. IMO half the grants currently being disbursed should be revoked...

all this does is make it harder to revoke grants in an already hard to navigate and non transparent grant environment. Look at who is voting which way, there are definitely people who want to make it harder to revoke grants :)

I think to ensure decisions remain fully decentralized (especially in the instance of revocation) it would be ideal for the community to be involved at the last round. This will ensure current and new community members’ voices are heard as well. In addition, it will include insight and perspectives from community members that may not have been involved during voting for the revocation committee.

I agree that community "must" have a say on revocation process. You can review my comment on your pre-proposal. But the current proposal wants to transfer the final judgement to the Community so the revocation committee will only become an execution committee that executes what the DAO wants. They have no voice here because the DAO will 100% decide, not them. I gave two options above which will save time to "strategically" include the community to the revocation process with a minimal adjustment to the current system... Anyways, I look forward to your journey regarding the inclusion of the community to the revocation process. Cheers! akasya.eth

Nah im pointing out that aloot of people have double standards based on seperate individuals. idc if they post twice 100x 10000x

Google “whataboutism” and understand why this isnt a good defense.

If you can’t strategically plan for this to pass the first time, maybe you should step down from the “strategic planning” the dao is paying you for.

So hps double treshold was rejected too so why is this a problem.

look at who is voting which way. This already got rejected.

If a member of the dao comittee does it why should it be a problem for anyone else 🤷🏻‍♂️

the last proposal was rejected and you immediately made a new one - i don't think that's how this should work :thinking:

This proposal presents a well thought out approach to ensuring that the community remains at the heart of decision making, particularly in matters as crucial as grant revocations. It reinforces the foundational principles of Decentraland: decentralization and communal governance- ensuring transparency, trust, and empowering every community member to play an active role in shaping the ecosystem.

I believe we need the Revocations Committee for expert opinions and recommendations, but there should also be a clear and convenient protocol for the Community to have the final say. In my opinion, if the Community participates in the enactment of grants, it should also have a voice in their revocation.

I supported the last version of this proposal as I believe we should allow the community to have say in whether a project stops or not (essentially, this is what happens when a grant is revoked). The committees that have been created (i.e., the GSS & RC) to assist with proposals and their successful execution should take into account the voice of the community and not just of a small group of people. I like structure of the process outlined and believe it will be the perfect additional layer to the current on in place as it’ll serve as a check and balance. Ultimately, I support this initiative.

Does it seems like redundant? I mean if the final decision relies on Community (DAO Vote) decision, what will happen to Grant Support Squad review effort if it will only be invalidated by the DAO (in case against the grant revocation). From your flow chart above, we can move up the Community Vote, in tandem with Grant Support Squad, to **review** the **Concerns Raised.** And then the **Revocation Committee** will execute whatever the **final agreement** from GSS, Revocation Committee, Community, and whatever squads deemed necessary. That will give a voice to Squads, Committee, and Community before executing the revocation process. Another alternative solution is to give a **preset VP** for revocation governance poll to Revocation committee and the GSS. **This is only an example:** Let's say the passing vote is 6M VP. * If revocation committee's decision is to revoke the grant, there should be a preset 2M to the revocation governance poll. * If GSS also wants to revoke the grant, then there should be another 2M to the governance voting poll, making it 4M preset VP. * Then the community will need 2M votes to pass the 6M threshold, or 6M VP to invalidate the Revocation Committee and the GSS. **I repeat, that is only an example.** I don't know if my explanation helps but Community as Final Arbiter will remove the essence of the revocation committee. That's a good idea in my opinion though hahaha Cheers akasya.eth

I went to the comments to describe our opinion on this issue, but I see that @web3nit did it for me =) The scheme is described perfectly. We think, as in the proposal that the community should have a final vote, but with some conditions: 1. Voting for revocation should be conducted by counting the number of votes, not VP 2. The Revocation committee has the right of veto imposed on the results prescribed within the next few days from the end of the vote 3. In cases where the right of veto is used, we should gather something like a jury commission — an elected group of enthusiasts who want to participate in such decisions voluntarily

Adding an extra layer to the revocation process that directly involves the community seems to me consistent with the concept of decentralization, and also beneficial for Decentraland. I have reread the comments of the poll linked to this draft and there has not been any that convinced me otherwise, everything and so I want to wait to read your comments on this proposal.

I voted on the last proposal too and still have the opinion that we should have no people with power and should do everything through community voting and decisions.

While the Community delegates certain decision-making responsibilities to Squads/Committees with specific expertise to maintain the DAO and move towards achieving its goals, it’s also important to remember that the Community plays a crucial role in the [DAO’s governance process](https://docs.decentraland.org/player/general/dao/overview/what-is-the-dao/). DAO’s involvement should ensure consistency in both grant enactment and revocation when needed.The Revocations Committee will still have an important role in the process, providing expert opinions and recommendations. The proposal aims to ensure that the Community will continue to play a substantive, not just ceremonial, role in the DAO governance process aligning it with the values of Decentralization, providing an avenue for disagreement with the Committee and establishing a clear protocol for handling such situations.