Build a new DAO Squad to work on Decentraland's Protocol This proposal has been ENACTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0) Vesting Contract Address: 0x0c7cedBE107243c0B5a5f03C19F7e3cbb7eBD2DE

Please don't forget to release the funds from https://vesting.decentraland.org/#/0x9072952e0101a7618762cBf94c90F0E7Da1E7B73 New vesting: https://vesting.decentraland.org/#/0x0c7cedBE107243c0B5a5f03C19F7e3cbb7eBD2DE

Dear community, The Grant Support Squad was created to support grantees in achieving their goals and to take care of the DAO Treasury, with the main goal of guaranteeing the effectiveness of the Grants Program. Based on the blocker highlighted by the grantee in the proper section of [#update5](https://governance.decentraland.org/update/?id=c20decc4-87bb-11ed-bd37-2b7f3eae6b63), to freeze efforts on the Unity front and instead redirect the budget to an implementation using the Godot engine and reusing part of the Rust code built by the Bevy implementation, we held a meeting with the team (@yemel), and reached to an agreement that the vesting contract should follow a newly proposed timeline. Therefore, we recommend that the DAO Committee (@Tobik @HPrivakos) create a new vesting contract that aligns with the presented schedule. The suggested start date for the new vesting contract, allocating the rest of the available funds, is May 29, 2023, with a duration of 4 months. We also suggest following the linear version of the vesting contract, preferably without a cliff, in line with the vesting contract version applicable at the time of the grant submission. Best regards, The Grant Support Squad.

Build a new DAO Squad to work on Decentraland's Protocol This proposal has been ENACTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0) Vesting Contract Address: 0x9072952e0101a7618762cBf94c90F0E7Da1E7B73

I'm really happy that this proposal has passed, thank you all for your support. We'll be starting to work on this with more focus now. For the time being, check out the amazing work that has already been happening in this github PR to [clarify and improve Decentraland's documentation by Santiago](https://github.com/decentraland/documentation/pull/66), our technical writer!

Build a new DAO Squad to work on Decentraland's Protocol This proposal is now in status: PASSED. Voting Results: * Yes 97% 11,535,619 VP (70 votes) * No 3% 377,319 VP (8 votes)

Makes total sense, especially if many of us want Decentraland not dependent on the foundation. CC @frantufro (this may be interesting to you).

f*ing yes! fully aligned with [the 5-year vision I shared](https://maraoz.com/2022/05/04/decentraland-vision/) and this team is fantastic to do this. Thanks for taking this up guys :slight_smile: btw, I agree with Eibriel in that I wouldn't call this a "DAO Squad". I think the name is a little confusing to newcomers, and sounds too "official". Consider "Protocol Working Group", "Protocol team", or even just "Protocol Squad" if you really like "squad" :upside_down_face:

I'm of two minds about this. * On the one hand, I am eager to start working on this asap * On the other, the tender & bidding system could give us more value per dollar, and it is indeed more decentralized... In the spirit of advancing fast, I'd continue with this line of work, unless the community votes otherwise...

[quote="dax, post:18, topic:17155, full:true"] to be clear, i’m voting ‘no’ because i think this should wait until the bidding and tendering system is live, not because i think this is a bad idea or something that shouldn’t happen. [/quote] I actually really like this point, as it can allow us to open doors for more bids/opportunities to expand the protocol. However, I do like the idea of an 'elite' squad, managed personally by two of Decentraland's most important figures. @esteban @yemel what do you think about @dax's point? The biding and tendering system might allow us to conduct this work in a cheaper and more decentralized fashion. The more centralized protocol squad however is the best method on the table which can ensure **we get this done.**

Voted yes. And totally agree with @johnnysharp: performance is the biggest need by far atm. If we want to onboard users that are not in it for the fascinating tech or the ideology behind it or even just for financial reasons, the user experience just has to be improved. By a lot. The current implementation def feels like an MVP that just continued to grow to a point it was never properly built for. So addressing this from the ground up is absolutely the way to go imho. One recommendation: The current team setup looks a bit too tech/dev heavy for me. I would love to see someone in charge of the UX on the team to ensure what is being built isn't just a masterpiece on the code/tech level, but also when it comes to the end users experience.

Improving performance is DCL's #1 need by far. Resources need to go all-in here at the expense of most of the other grants I've seen. Voted yes

to be clear, i'm voting 'no' because i think this should wait until the bidding and tendering system is live, not because i think this is a bad idea or something that shouldn't happen.

[quote="Eibriel, post:15, topic:17155"] At the moment all grants are exactly the same, with exactly the same requirements and expectations, regarding the name. [/quote] Yes, but there's a high correlation with grants "in the Platform Contributor" category.

[quote="Eibriel, post:15, topic:17155"] I also think the word Squad, with strong military connotation [/quote] This is really interesting, I haven't thought of it this way, I agree with you.

Interesting, in that case I would recommend removing "Squad" or "Core Unit" from the name of the project, since that is not a category in the grants. At the moment all grants are exactly the same, with exactly the same requirements and expectations, regarding the name. (Personally I also think the word Squad, with strong military connotation, shouldn't be used in the DAO)

I associate "Squad" with the "Core Units" of MakerDAO. I think this will be an ongoing effort over time, rather than a one-time grant request.

[quote="Tudamoon, post:10, topic:17155"] Budget Breakdown. [/quote] Mostly salaries. We can account for ~100k regarding the writer and lead; but we'd like to leave some room to negotiate the salary of each full stack engineer. * Technical writer: 20hr/week, $45/hour. $3,600 --> $21,600 over 6 months * Technical lead: 40hr/week, $80/hour. $12,800 --> $76,800 over 6 months We also commit to return any funds that we would not use at the end of the grant.

Now I've a question. **Why is this group of work called "DAO Squad"?** Why the 2D and VR grants are not "2D DAO Squad" or "VR DAO Squad"? In some way all grants are DAO Squads. I'm getting confused by that name scheme. I assumed that DAO Squads were "meta" projects, projects helping other projects. But this one is not that.

Voting **Yes**, having multiple Clients is key to the success of Decentraland. In a similar way (but for different reasons) multiple clients is key for the success of [Ethereum](https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/nodes-and-clients/client-diversity/), [Second Life](https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Third_Party_Viewer_Directory) and the Internet.

Budget Breakdown. Am I missing this?

[quote="esteban, post:7, topic:17155"] I think this is a little off-topic. Would you open a thread in the forum to discuss this as a general topic? It does not only affect this grant but all grants that would be proposed after it. [/quote] Well its hard to discuss outside of here because I am banned in the Official Decentraland Discord and the DCL DAO Discord. I am still trying to figure out what it means to "behave" in web3, but oh well. :rofl: [quote="esteban, post:7, topic:17155"] You comment made me feel like you think this is a “backhanded” thing [/quote] I promise it isn't. It is genuine and I am sorry you feel that way. I just know we are raising the VP and other criteria soon for this, just wanted to hear your thoughts. However your reason seems honest. Just was doing my due diligence that this wasn't to avoid the 2 million VP increase. There's been recent events where I said something too late and then people thought it was an "attack." Like I was concerned if this only hit 8 Million VP and then I said something then, people would assume I am being petty. But I know @yemel is the one who made that proposal, so I found it off when I see they are making this grant proposal for so much.

[quote="mattimus, post:5, topic:17155"] what is the reason these additional clients should be funded with dao funds, instead of delegating the work and documentation to the foundation, just as we have delegated the reference client work? [/quote] To provide some background, the first paragraph of the grant proposal says that [quote] Decentraland has always favored a vision of collective ownership, relying on peer-to-peer networks and open-source development. But for a truly decentralized platform that stands the test of time, the technical knowledge and expertise required to build using this protocol needs to be distributed. [/quote] I want this effort to be completely independent of the Foundation for two reasons: 1. **Political decentralization** I think the Foundation holds too much know-how about the protocol and only recently it started to do a great job out of educating and communicating regarding technical matters with the Technical AMAs. This grant is for a future where the know-how about implementations also lives outside of the Decentraland Foundation, which is a strictly better scenario than now. 2. **Incentive alignment** I think that `"just vote for the foundation to do it"` is not well incentive-aligned, and could be considered as "cognitive laziness" or "wishful thinking". What if they just don't do it? Would they be bound by a governance proposal? Even I don't know, and I was there when the DAO started. By creating an independent team, we can ensure this team has a clear objective and it's aligned with the Grant updates and funding.

[quote="Tudamoon, post:4, topic:17155"] May I ask for a reason this is being proposed at this time? [/quote] I think this is a little off-topic. Would you open a thread in the forum to discuss this as a general topic? It does not only affect this grant but all grants that would be proposed after it. In any case, I will reply here. You comment made me feel like you think this is a "backhanded" thing. To be honest, I hadn't realized I would have to raise 2M more VP based on the new Tiers. The New Tiers proposal itself mentions that `...[T]hese changes are all feasible and can be developed in one or two weeks`. I helped Yemel (the author of that other proposal) with the draft of the new tiers proposal and I did not realized that it would affect this in any way. Yemel also didn't IMHO, and he's a coauthor of this proposal. But actually, you're right, there is a reason for the timing of this proposal, just not what you think: We've been working for two weeks already on this; and we wanted to propose it now *in case* the Grant Pausing Period enters into effect.

There is also another funded grant (although it appears to be off track) for this: https://governance.decentraland.org/proposal/?id=1959b490-f726-11ec-805c-77efd746e6b7 I agree this should maybe be handled by the foundation, or at the least, wait until the bidding scheme has gone through entirely. side question: apologies if this isn't the right venue to ask this, but i've long been curious - how do landowner rights work in alternative clients? i own LAND, that shows up in the reference client as belonging to me and I can deploy to it. If/when more clients are developed, is the default behavior to have lands remain in the hands of original owners? can there be new auctions in offshoot worlds? I'm just curious what the default implementation is, if there is one.