Hello @pablo We don't have that kind of procedure because it would be centralized decisions. However, I agree that maybe we can think of something more automatic, such as, if you submitted under x category, complete this, and if it is wrong, the vesting contract will not be enacted. That kind of development is a long shot, so we need to trust in people for now (voted by the Community)

Should the Community Be the Final Arbiter in Grants Revocation Decisions ? This proposal is now in status: REJECTED. Voting Results: * Yes 46% 7,257,022 VP (42 votes) * No 53% 8,328,407 VP (64 votes) * Abstain 1% 774 VP (6 votes)

"Let the community decide" was literally an option on the first proposal that lead to the creation of the new committee. Perhaps those of you speaking on the subject now should do some research and understand what the COMMUNITY voted for. Acting as if this committee was invented without respecting a decentralized process is dishonest. While I never expect honesty from MrD, I do expect better from the rest of you.

If the vesting contract is paused, whats the problem to wait for a community decision? grantee wont have the funds if he doesn't accomplish his part of the deal. We should have the appropriate people to design and develop the process and contracts. The centralized, subjective and humanized decision have flaws, they can ignore the terms and conditions and make own interpretations, also there is a lot of space for corruption and interest. I prefer to rely the final decission to the DAO and to the code in contract while a grant contract is paused. The revocation committee / gss can still review the cases and activate the process. Now, reviewing previous cases, e.g. some was revoked because wrong category... then I think, in any case why don't we have a grant committee that reviews the proposal before enacting and not after? Why the grant was enacted if it was in a wrong category? Maybe the revocation committee is unnecessary.

Decentralization refers to a system where control, decision-making, and authority are distributed across a network of participants rather than being concentrated in a single entity or central authority. The grant has been subject to community voting, and it's only fair that the community retains the ability to vote on the final decision as well.

Hi @Tudamoon When a case is raised to the revocations committee, a preventive pause is activated in the consolidation contract. [Art. 9, point 3](https://www.notion.so/dcl-dao/Revocations-Committee-Framework-36020a29a03a434996c8f50b78f5cfd6)

Would the contract be paused if the grant is in favor of being revoked by the Revocations Committee? Otherwise I feel asking for community final approval is giving them more time to remove funds from the vesting contract?

The DAO grants program is a funding mechanism for various projects, requiring the community's approval through voting. It's important to acknowledge the challenge of the current issue of voting power distribution within the DAO. This challenge led to [creation the Grant Support Squad](https://governance.decentraland.org/proposal/?id=7a236540-d305-11ec-b521-2f98ffa6ccb0), a process where this task force evaluates objective concerns, engages with grantees, and escalates cases to the revocations committee, which then makes final decisions. Something important to mention, the community has already voted on [Who should make the decision of revoking grants? ](https://governance.decentraland.org/proposal/?id=823c92e0-2ad2-11ed-ac99-5bece7edccd0) And that is why the Revocations Committee was created. While the proposal to have the community vote on revocation decisions reflects the desire for increased community accountability, it might not be the most effective solution. Adding a community vote after the revocations committee's decision could introduce complexities and procedural challenges, leading to delays and confusion. Furthermore, there's a risk of duplicating efforts, as the committee's evaluation already represents a comprehensive review process. However, the community's role in maintaining accountability remains. Encouraging community members to [raise objective concerns](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JlVSLbYypuyZpSRuf92dZcvCwP4rwiNkBPs1KTBar7w/edit) and provide [comments on project updates, like the new feature releases by the Governance Squad](https://github.com/decentraland/governance/issues/1156), remains a robust mechanism for overwatching. This approach ensures that projects are consistently monitored, aligning with their intended goals and what the community funded. This decentralized monitoring is vital for the health and success of the grants program. Last but not least, going through the governance process to revoke a grant can be used as a community sentiment about the project under watch, but the only Committee with the authority to request revoke the vesting contract of a Grant, is the Revocations Committee such [Article 8 of the Revocations Committee Framework says.](https://www.notion.so/dcl-dao/Revocations-Committee-Framework-36020a29a03a434996c8f50b78f5cfd6?pvs=4) In summary, while the proposed community vote after the revocations committee's decision is well-intentioned, it may introduce inefficiencies and unnecessary complexities. Instead, promoting ongoing community engagement through open dialogue, objective concerns, and continuous project monitoring enhances the program's accountability and transparency.

I think this is adding more complexity to something that's complex by definition and another loophole that I'd prefer to avoid...

Changing the only part i liked… what a shock

Thanks for feedback. Agree, that make sense, we can upgrade it in gov proposal if this passes.

Hi @web3nit. I've taken another pass at your draft proposal and have a thought/recommendation. **** I believe the highlighted section may overcomplicate things. Instead of having the 6M VP plus (+) reaching a 60% majority of the votes threshold, I believe we can simply stick to the majority vote like it's currently done in the grant/governance proposal process. This will ensure alignment across the platform. Instead, the formula can look like this: **6M VP plus (+) an overall majority of the votes threshold**

Voting **No**, I don't feel the DAO is currently healthy enough to allow for this loops on the decision process. If we could make this kind of decisions wouldn't be a Revocations Committee in the first place. Lets talk again if this [change to the DAO](https://governance.decentraland.org/proposal/?id=46e573c0-36bf-11ee-be2d-676a2489bc16) is successful.

Yes, by asking for a new grant ahah You could also do a governance proposal, but it takes longer and needs more VP, so better just ask for a new grant

I believe that if the community voted for a proposal to pass, they should have a voice before a proposal is revoked. Having the community component to this process will avoid one centralized smaller unit/group of people make a decision that most of the community may not agree with. It also ensures that the community can solidify a decision for revocation. I believe it works well both ways. As such, I’m in agreement with this proposed change in our current process.

cool, no problem at all!

Hi @MetaDogeisme , thanks for the feedback. Indeed, gov prop can override it. This initiative aims to streamline the grants revocation process, making it more efficient, while aligning it with the existing opportunities within the governance process.

I think this is a good idea, and I think it is already the case now. As far as I know, the governance proposal can override the decision made by the revocation committee, but let's hear some confirmation from @HPrivakos.

I don't see why we shouldn't have a complementary system to the revocation committee, I think this proposal obviously makes Decentraland more decentralized and I don't understand the reason for voting no to this.

A lot of this goes over my head. I know it is cuz I not that smart but also I think don't we over complicate things to much? Like honest question why dont we just have the vesting on an escrow type system where portions of the money is released when the mile stones are achieved? Instead we legit now have a process where 1. vote for a grant to pass 2. vote people n a team to over see the grants 3. vote differnt staff in at differnt times 4. vote on an approval of a revocation. I may be missing something but wouldn't it be more efficient to have just a performance escrow system?

I know individuals may think it’s excessive, but I think it a great way to ensure decentralized decisions by having the community involved at the very end.

This is literally a step backward from what was just voted into place by the community very recently.

I'm all in favor to decentralize everything this sounds like a solid idea, I hope the community keeps in mind that we have to achieve decentralization in small steps.

Hey, it works in both directions.

Why does it seem like the community only gets to vote on restoring revoked funds and not on if the grant should be revoked in the first place?