There are at least 9k that can be taken out of the proposal. * MetaTrekkers [announced in this thread](https://forum.decentraland.org/t/dao-b818707-support-dcl-reporters-and-improve-content-quality/16478/46) they will not accept their compensation * [fabinhodcl](https://www.twitch.tv/fabinhodcl) has 35 followers. They streamed once, got ~21 views, two months ago. * [MoustafaSb](https://www.twitch.tv/MoustafaSb) has 18 followers. They streamed twice, last week, ~10 views. I love the idea of creating content in different languages. I also love Kevin's streams, I believe his heart is in the right place, and we shouldn't race-to-the-bottom with ad-hominem attacks. That doesn't mean that we can be reckless with how we spend the DAO's treasury.

You think 3k is to much for the other multiple streamers for 6 months worth of work and streaming is to much? Or are you basing that solely on the one streamer. To clarify so we know how and who your targeting in this statement since most have well over 1k followers on combined social networks.also if people aren’t streaming now how do you think that will effect next bull run when otherside,treeverse,exile,bloktopia,pavia cornocopia, tcg and many other projects launch.

Dear Kevin, Instead of publishing derrogatory comments and questioning people's opinions or reasons for voting no, further fueling the toxicity in the forum and DCL Twitter, I wanted to explain my vote. When I digged into how funds would be used, I decided that a grant request that plans to pay 3k USD to people with less than 40 followers on twitch doesn't look like a good use of funds. That's all. No evil plan, no idea what DG has to do with this. Have a good day. Cheers, Esteban

Much respect to you! @TheCryptoTengu 🙏🏿 Just trying to find a community balance!

Support DCL Reporters and Improve Content Quality This proposal is now in status: REJECTED. Voting Results: * Yes 17% 2,556,728 VP (84 votes) * No 83% 11,825,791 VP (46 votes)

Was way less eyes on the dao before. A year ago was common as hell to see people vote themselves money. It was talked about in the Waifumon discord almost daily by some of us. There was and still is no true way to combat it. So good on @MetaTrekkers but really the amount is small and trivial. Compared to some the larger firms and groups here who have got huge grants and well whats to show for it? ill throw shade at skankfest grant. Was it worth the money? Im personally glad to see some grants start to get revoked and forced to give updates via a over sight committee. Kevin has been around and has a lot of respect. Think this vote comes down to his past interactions more within the community the past few months then his full history. I look forward to seeing content creators get paid. Be it now or after a pause. We all need to learn how to break bread. 3k for each reporters to provide content to me is win. I am glad to see that. Thats also really cheap for the amount of time a lot of them would put in. Look forward to a repreproposal.

[quote="MetaTrekkers, post:46, topic:16478"] I understand how by voting on a proposal that compensates me for being a reporter may look a bit off putting from the outside looking in [/quote] [quote="MetaTrekkers, post:46, topic:16478"] This past week, I read the comments of the proposal and understand why certain individuals may have concerns about a potential conflict of interest. [/quote] Maybe this is something to consider also then? https://governance.decentraland.org/proposal/?id=c73ae920-63c4-11ed-bf97-7dbf9f54c71d

This is a good question. :100:

I can respect this @MetaTrekkers... although the amount that you would receive from this grant is really small. If we allow self-voting, **we are setting a precedent for future voting, in which the benefit amounts could be much larger, and no one would be able to say anything then, because we allowed it in the past.** I understand that other community members have self-voted before, and benefited in much larger amounts. I'm not sure why this was overlooked in the past, but now that the conversation has come to light, **I hope the community will place focus on any and all grants where conflict of interest is present... especially when those who are self-voting have enough VP to heavily affect the outcome of the vote.** That being said... I'm not sure there is a full-proof way of avoiding conflicts of interest. I'm going off on a tangent here but: What is to stop Kevin from compensating Chris for his VP vote off the record or on the side? What if Chris doesn't get 3K but he gets a large amount of Reward Token for some "unrelated reason"? Are we going to scrutinize every move? Is it better to have conflict of interest in our face, or push it off to where no one can see it? **What constitutes a conflict of interest?**. I'm happy we are having these discussions.

Only reason im vote yes is for @MetaTrekkers @friskybumblebee and the reporters. Kevin's actions were way less then Honorable on the last grant request. That 16k nft buy spoke volumes to me. The community blow back speaks for itself. Ill be bigger then that. Still want to see reporters get paid outside donations and wearables and a token with almost nil value. Thanks for tag @MetaTrekkers Chris all good man.

Hi @KevinOnEarth will you now reduce your request by $3,000?

Hey DCL Family and @KevinOnEarth This past week, I read the comments of the proposal and understand why certain individuals may have concerns about a potential conflict of interest. As such, Metatrekkers (Chris) will forfeit any DCL report compensation that was allotted to me by the DCL report. I understand how by voting on a proposal that compensates me for being a reporter may look a bit off putting from the outside looking in. I hope this addresses any concerns raised regarding me, Chris, and my organization, MetaTrekkers. Weekly Reporter Generated Micro-Content for Social Channels for 6 months ($3k/reporter, 6 Total Reporters) @KevinOnEarth @HPrivakos @Tobik @DedHeadJ @Xchang @ckbubbles @Tudamoon @CheddarQueso @TheCryptoTengu

lol we all know the answer to that lmfao.

How about stop bossing people around? I can act as I choose. Thank you!

[quote="CheddarQueso, post:38, topic:16478"] So what is the community consensus here: Should those who stand to benefit (even in the smallest amounts) from a proposal be able to vote on it? How would we verify that none of the voters stand to benefit? [/quote] Voting in a direct conflict of interest will lead to Centralization. Centralization will kill the brand of Decentraland and will make any progress made obsolete. Conflict of Interest is one of the most critical rules we have to enforce to remain Decentralized. Otherwise it is a slippery slope of one grant passed here, one grant passed there, to owning millions of MANA to controlling the outcome of the Decentraland DAO. It will be our downfall if we do NOT stop it now. To be Honest, current DAO members have said we have a committee that would stop a centralized entity from doing that, however that centralized committee to fight against a centralized power would literally make Decentraland look like a joke. Revocation of Grants for conflict of interest is not a current means for revoking a grant. So that committee enacting those powers of denying the grant for that reason when it hasn't done it before, would look like a centralized and unfair use of power. If we just made a rule forbidding the voting of conflict of interest, this would not be an issue.

[quote="SugarClub, post:40, topic:16478"] Just don’t ping everyone ( or target specific community members with pings ) to debate just because your opinion differs from others :+1: [/quote] Yes your majesty! I will listen to your orders.

Respectfully, people should be concerned with the community recourse of their vote. As a public voting process this acts as a check and balance between you and the community. If you don't stand behind your vote, don't vote. You're not required to defend your position but people are also entitled to their opinions of your actions.

[quote="DedHeadJ, post:33, topic:16478"] In my opinion it appears that there could be a potential conflict of interest happening here. While I strongly agree that the reporters should be compensated, paid personnel should not have the ability to vote on a proposal that will benefit them financially. Again, this is my opinion, and any constructive feedback is welcome. [/quote] @DedHeadJ makes a good point here.. I have a strong military background and experience in distribution of funds. In my experience.. anyone who stands to benefit from a disbursement would be required to abstain from participating in the voting process. However, I believe that it is common practice in DCL DAO, as I have seen more than a few proposals where those who will be receiving the funds are on the voters list. So what is the community consensus here: Should those who stand to benefit (even in the smallest amounts) from a proposal be able to vote on it? How would we verify that none of the voters stand to benefit?

A heartfelt thank you from everyone on the DCL Report team Doug; we love DCL, as DCL born metaverse citizens we will do our very best to serve the community! <3

Skipping past all the negativity above to say thank you @KevinOnEarth for your commitment to the platform. Voting yes in the hopes that you may keep up your efforts with us.

I agree with DedHeadJ here, I think it's a conflict of interest to vote on a proposal that pays you, especially if it has not been passed by the community first.

Also, it would have been nice if he didn't block all the people from his twitter space that he didn't want there. I couldn't attend. As a reporting agency that claims to be decentralized, seems to make censorship a priority. My constructive criticism is to end censorship and do fair reporting. Will you own the truth or only share your propaganda?

I appreciated your apology and much more professional reply to @canessa who has a complete right to express an opinion without harsh retribute. I listened to your Town Hall on Twitter playback and heard an informative tone and an openness with all questions. These are great steps in the right direction! In my opinion it appears that there could be a potential conflict of interest happening here. While I strongly agree that the reporters should be compensated, paid personnel should not have the ability to vote on a proposal that will benefit them financially. Again, this is my opinion, and any constructive feedback is welcome.

@KevinClark Are you open to constructive criticism?

I would recommend you read my reply again. I'm not talking about anyone specifically. I'm not defending Kevin or attacking the other side. I'm just pointing out the general toxicity of the DAO lately. Also, this is another reason why we have all this toxicity. People DON'T READ and they MAKE SPECULATIONS based on what they think. Why not contact others in private before doing a statement? You don't know what I think about this proposal because you don't live inside my brain. People don't know how to receive feedback without being aggressive, some others invent stuff and others want to make Twitter drama. The good news is that we all make mistakes and some people are starting to learn from this whole thing. Let's all move in that direction.