Should every grant update require invoices, receipts or explanations of where the grant funds were sent? This proposal has been REJECTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)

Should every grant update require invoices, receipts or explanations of where the grant funds were sent? This proposal is now in status: FINISHED. Voting Results: * Yes 8% 334,117 VP (30 votes) * No 64% 2,615,488 VP (40 votes) * Invalid question/options 28% 1,196,074 VP (13 votes)

Thank you for your opinion. I would love to hear your opinion on Decentralization and transparency. Clearly it looks like you thought this through.

I think we have to let the Grant Support Squad do their work. It seems that they have already revoked a few grants and are staying on top of grantees by digging deeper into each proposal when the roadmap falls off track. I do agree with you on some conflict of interest issues but I don't think this is a good solution.

I would like to remind everyone that the Draft stage of this is the stage where the specific details must be laid out. [quote="dao, post:1, topic:3584"] ***Stage 1: Pre-Proposal Poll*** The purpose of the Pre-Proposal Poll is to introduce a governance issue to the community, gauge community sentiment, and determine if there is enough support to move forward with the drafting of an initial proposal. Pre-Proposal Polls can only pass to the Draft Proposal stage if they have accumulated a threshold of at least 500K VP. A poll that reaches at least 500K VP and does *not* garner a majority of participating voting power, may *still* advance to the Draft Proposal stage - ensuring all issues with enough support have an initial pathway toward passage into policy. Polls do not need to be composed in any specific form. They can be drafted in the full proposal format, or be presented as a straightforward question. Polls are currently the only option we have for governance issues that fall outside the established categories (Grants, name ban, catalysts and POIs). * Submission Threshold: 100 VP (i.e. equivalent to one name) * Passage Threshold: 500K VP * Voting Period: 5 Days [/quote]

I want to make 1 thing clear. I NEVER attacked anyone directly, nor called them a name. No ad hominem attacks have come from me. I have only called out the ethics, actions and schemes they have participated in. However, what I do find very sad when I get threatened on Twitter with someone DM'ing me my personal address and telling me they will meet me at my house or then on here getting called names, when I am bringing up reasonable ethical principles. There is so much talk from others on here how mental health safe places are needed in this Web3 space, but one thing I fail to see here is anyone of those people coming to defend those who are being attacked directly. These are attacks on one's person, not their actions or prior experiences. On another note, I am hearing others talk about how much more work it is or how hard it is. Web3 isn't easy, Freedom takes work. Web3 takes work. However, when it comes to ethics, if the work is more difficult, should we just throw it out the window?

[quote="Doug-NFTWorld, post:37, topic:16444"] @Tudamoon I speak from experience as someone who actually builds stuff in Decentraland and runs a company. [/quote] No one discredited that. However, you have a grant and you are voting in conflict of that grant. This would effect your current grant. Should ethics be considered here? [quote="Doug-NFTWorld, post:37, topic:16444"] All you do is troll these forums with bullshit proposals and nonsense like this. You cant even be taken seriously so I’ll be ignoring any further correspondence from you. [/quote] This is rude. I was not disrespectful to you and using ad hominem attacks is poor coming from someone who claims to be a respected person.

@Tudamoon I speak from experience as someone who actually builds stuff in Decentraland and runs a company. The conflict of interest is you trying to govern Decentraland without contributing a single thing of value to the platform. All you do is troll these forums with bullshit proposals and nonsense like this. You cant even be taken seriously so I'll be ignoring any further correspondence from you.

[quote="SugarClub, post:33, topic:16444"] That’s sounds like a data protection , jurisdiction nightmare. [/quote] Sharing this information on your normal Grant Update section? I'm confused.

[quote="dax, post:32, topic:16444"] The proposal I made was voted in and is currently on track. Proof is in the pudding :person_shrugging: [/quote] Once a gain, it is in Conflict of Interest. [quote="Tudamoon, post:29, topic:16444"] Your 3 votes alone equal around *1.37 Million* VP. [/quote]

>Do you really believe we can stand up against the U.S. Government and Meta funding lobbyists to take its competitors down. Yep. Do you not? What are you doing here then? >Red tape is needed for Free money. The DAO isn't giving away free money. Proposals are voted on by the community and the DAO fulfills and manages the funds given to those proposals. > Otherwise a lot of bad actors will come and take it until its gone. Well, the revocation squad is a good step against this, as is informed voting and good processes which we are slowly building up. > Anyone who feels they cannot provide receipts, invoices or declare where the money was sent, a very easy thing to do, DOESN’T deserve grant money. Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. >Do you really expect anyone to believe you can complete a full project when you literally can’t upload an invoice or receipt? Yep. The proposal I made was voted in and is currently on track. Proof is in the pudding :person_shrugging:

[quote="dax, post:30, topic:16444"] i work for a fintech and AML is literally useless [/quote] It is, except when governments get involved. Do you really believe we can stand up against the U.S. Government and Meta funding lobbyists to take its competitors down. [quote="dax, post:30, topic:16444"] it does nothing but add redtape [/quote] Red tape is needed for Free money. Otherwise a lot of bad actors will come and take it until its gone. In my opinion, Anyone who feels they cannot provide receipts, invoices or declare where the money was sent, a very easy thing to do, DOESN'T deserve grant money. Do you really expect anyone to believe you can complete a full project when you literally can't upload an invoice or receipt? What does it take 5 seconds?

you're really hung up on the AML thing - i work for a fintech and AML is literally useless. it does nothing but add redtape and it does nothing to make anyone safer or any process better. there is no good reason to drag that with us into web3 unless you're the government and you're scared of losing control. as for conflicts of interest, I voted in the same way that others did - i don't think this proposal makes sense. I gave a budget when i made my grant proposal and I'm sticking to it - If i'm unable to stick to it, that's my own problem and I'll not make the money that I planned to (which is already a much lower rate than normal, as @mattimus said). If a grant proposal doesn't provide a budget or provides and inflated budget, that proposal should be voted down for that reason.

Conflict of Interest: @Doug-NFTWorld and @MetaTrekkers you both have $120K DAO Grants enacted. @dax you have 2 enacted grants also. Your 3 votes alone equal around *1.37 Million* VP. **This is about the community. These votes are pure conflicts of interest.** I am not sure what the big deal is about sharing the information if you are actually sending it to the places you say you are. Just share how much you paid when you make a payment. Not asking for an accounting report. Just receipts, invoices and who you paid.   As for the DCL Grant Support Squad I do sure hope anti-money laundering practices are being enacted because if a regulator comes and the Squad does not have their shit together, there is going to be major issues. If this does not improve, money laundering will be the downfall of DCL. If I were a centralized competitor of DCL like Meta, that would be the first thing I would aim at for DCL to get it taken down. All they would have to do is pay the authorities to look into the Grant funds and without knowing the destinations of the funds, for all we know they could be being funneled anywhere or pocketed.

No no no, I would never spend $10,000 of DAO funds on donuts. I'd go for the full $240,000 and then I'd rebrand them as "DAOnuts" and I would share with everyone here. :doughnut: :doughnut: :doughnut:

I agree with @AaronLeupp @SugarClub @pablo @HPrivakos @Klockmann @Doug-NFTWorld @Eibriel Thanks for your share @Vaporizador seems like the DAO is already trying to find a balance approach.

Why not? Packing in a nice "Welcome to Decentraland" package with a download voucher for a wearable, would surely get a few people to log into Decentraland. In addition, some media would certainly also report on this fundraising campaign. This would be transparent, it is benevolent. WIN-WIN

Voting no. DAO Support Squad is already doing their job to make sure everything goes by the book. More paperwork and administration is a no from here. But if asked by DAO Support Squad, i think the grantee's should be able to defend themselfs what the money is being used on :slight_smile:

Monthly updates are already required. I don't see the point of analyzing invoices/receipts/etc. Either proposal milestones are being met, or they aren't. And if milestones aren't being met, there are better explanations than paperwork. Anyone who has actual experience building anything, knows that progress isn't based on receipts and invoices. In my opinion this seems like an attempt to poke the hornets nest rather than a viable solution for limiting wasted funds.

I don't think this makes too much sense, when we require a service from a company we don't ask for all the company internal receipts, we just receive the receipt of the service provided, which is already on the grant proposals, and the DAO as a customer accepts the budget or declines it. Of course, as a customer you can ask the reasoning for a budget to accept it or not, but as it's said, this is already done before passing the proposal. Is like if you go to repair your car, you are given a budget, you accept it, and then when you have to pay you ask for all the receipts of the car mechanic, rentals, materials, employees, ... and if he doesn't provide it, you don't pay; It doesn't make sense, right? Other matter is if the car is not repaired, in which case of course makes sense to don't pay the service. So, that is what I would just ask for, that the delivarables on the proposal are delivered and all preestablished conditions are met. So, if someone thinks a proposal is not well justified, even accepted and with work delivered, what should be reveiwed is the acceptance process before enacting a grant (for example: https://governance.decentraland.org/proposal/?id=9a237890-17ec-11ed-affb-95d45c2147f8 ) About being transaparents, well, we are as transparent as posible on our updates without entering in too many details to don't make a TLDR text, others could make more text to make seem there is more work done, if someone is interested we can tell how many "git commits" we have in the code, how many hours and employees (except personal data that is not ours), how many pencils and office materials we bought, but this is optional on our side, we committed to deliver "something" in the accepted proposal, and that's what is delivered. In any case, if this proposal is accepted, I think it should never be retroactive, because the proposals are passed under established conditions, I don't like if 1 part of a deal breaks an agreement between parts without the consent of the other part. It could work however for future proposals.

Not a problem at all

I apologize for that. I will try to find the correct person to tag.

[quote="HPrivakos, post:16, topic:16444"] Do you have an implementation path? How is the DAO Committee supposed to enact a proposal like that? [/quote] Not yet, can definitely come up with a detailed plan of action when this passes. This is a move to decentralization. [quote="HPrivakos, post:16, topic:16444"] I support it in theory, but in practice it’s an invalid proposal as it cannot be implemented [/quote] I don't believe in the word "cannot." If you know how it cannot be done, we are certainly already 1 step ahead and I thank you for that. Please share the technical obstacles.

Do you have an implementation path? How is the DAO Committee supposed to enact a proposal like that? I support it in theory, but in practice it's an invalid proposal as it cannot be implemented

tagging the wrong person.