Retroactive Grant: Morph This proposal has been ENACTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xfb1afa4dc069ffb47b19dbee196045d508fcd5a2) Vesting Contract Addresses: 0xed445b84fab388541ac26d03a2e980a4860af80a

Hi! Please DAO Committee (@HPrivakos @Tobik @rizk) proceed with the creation of this vesting contract. Thanks

Indeed, that meeting took place but I must make two clarifications: 1) It was a meeting prior to the approval of the freeze. 2) Although we agreed on this, that group does not have the authority to make a decision about it. That's why, once the freeze was approved, we made the implementation proposal to clarify and define with the community the next steps since the implementation of the original proposal was not clear. Regards and thank you!

All I know is, at the very least, @web3nit,@HPrivakos, @Fehz, @palewin, @Zino, and @yararasita were all in a meeting where they discussed the grant freeze, and at the time of that meeting, they all concluded that grants submitted prior to the freeze passing would be considered valid and honored. If somehow that meeting occurred and the multiple members of the GSS failed to communicate to you the conclusion of that meeting, that seems like a failure on the GSS. It's not your fault if they are bad communicators, but a failing nonetheless. I hope you have a lovely day.

Hi @Banned, I haven't received any notification regarding the occurrence of that meeting or any instructions for the rest of the team to proceed with this grant. I need explicit confirmation whether this grant will be included or not according to the implementation. Thanks for your comment.

[quote="fifitango, post:27, topic:21868"] I have not participated in any meetings with Morph or other core units regarding this matter. [/quote] For what it’s worth, the rest of the GSS was in such a meeting. Apologies if my statement felt targeted at you personally, i have yet to find someone with anything bad to say about you. I was referring to the gss as a whole.

Hi! How are you? Sorry for the delay on this response but first I want to make it clear that I strong deny any insinuations suggesting hete that I have held back anything for personal purposes. Additionally, I have not participated in any meetings with Morph or other core units regarding this matter. My decision-making process was solely aimed at ensuring proper approval for the implementation to determine its viability. DearHead's is rigth on this. Given that the implementation has passed, I will proceed with onboarding this grant as usual. Thank you for your understanding. FIFI

They changed their mind because they want to hold your grant hostage to get their own ability to apply for grants passed. [quote="Morph, post:25, topic:21868"] as I understand as long as the grant was created before the freeze passed we should be ok to continue - I’m ok to wait while we sort that out. [/quote]

Hey there, thank you for the heads up - just let me know what you need from me if anything, but as far as I understand as long as the grant was created before the freeze passed we should be ok to continue - I'm ok to wait while we sort that out.

[[IMPLEMENTATION] Freeze All non-Platform Grant Spending (decentraland.org)](https://decentraland.org/governance/proposal/?id=18ae3b9b-e5e6-4b3c-acc9-bce877ec02b2) There is this: 1. All grant proposals that were created while the binding Governance proposal voting period was open (From Jan 26, 2024, 2:18 AM UTC to Feb 9, 2024, 2:18 AM UTC), will be considered valid. The approved Grant proposals will be funded.

I have it from multiple sources that the core units and DAO committee had a meeting and concluded that grants submitted before then end of the freeze grant wuold be honored. It was the reason @web3nit submitted his grant hours before the freeze passed, because he was in that meeting. Could you help me understand what changed since then?

Hi @Morph the [governance proposal](https://decentraland.org/governance/proposal/?id=a89f79f1-7171-4982-8ca1-5a21b5872373) to pause all grants that are not platform-related has passed , and the implementation flow, among other things, is still unclear regarding the grants that were approved after the freeze proposal was accepted. Although the rule is that contracts are created 15 days after the proposal passes we request the DAO Committee (@HPrivakos @Tobik @rizk) to wait before creating the corresponding Vesting Contract. Once the thing is clarified we will proceed with the onboarding of this project, for which the execution timeframe (contract) will be reviewed if needed. Regards and thank you!

Retroactive Grant: Morph This proposal is now in status: PASSED. Voting Results: * Yes 58% 6,910,083 VP (65 votes) * No 15% 1,881,864 VP (11 votes) * Abstain 27% 3,395,775 VP (12 votes)

I do want to entertain the idea of rewarding people who put in many hours of work for Decentraland... but not by giving out individual grants with arbitrary amounts, no financial reporting, time sheets, or quantified data. There should be established a framework to award all creators based on a criteria.

I'm glad you brought this up! The youtube is simply for long term storage of VODs and single-use marketing content, I definitely don't expect to be getting a grant based on youtube subs. However, I think this highlights another issue - the viewing audience for Decentraland is _extremely small_ - it is nearly impossible to achieve triple digit viewers, because we don't have 100 people who are interesting in watching a Decentraland stream, this is a constant effort to grow this vertical and increase that number, but it is an uphill battle. For context, my 'events' streams, such as one year anniversary and birthday, hit over 70 concurrent viewers each, this showcased that there is a larger audience out there that can be converted to Decentraland content viewer, and a slow upwards grind in concurrent viewers over this year reinforces that. Finally, simply as an example of how difficult consistently streaming in Decentraland is - I have done streams for two other games - both of these streams hit 50 concurrent viewers with nearly zero marketing or effort - these viewers were directly exposed to Decentraland & Decentraland avatars, but it goes to show just how difficult growing an audience in this niche is that I can immediately double my audience by streaming something else - however, someone has to stream Decentraland, or the overall stream base will never grow for anyone, if we want to see the types of audience numbers that other larger verticals have, we need to grow it over time and cultivate it, it will not just appear suddenly.  I believe this, on top of the research performed to get to that level, has had a solid impact on the Decentraland ecosystem and how the larger metaverse views us, and is why I am asking for a grant.

Hi all! Thank you for the feedback, to be honest I was a little surprised as I had always thought of retroactive grants to be the best way to evaluate a users impact, and whether they were deserving of a grant. Firstly, yes, I understand and agree, we do not want to be handing out grants to users because they had a single twitter post pop off, but do we really not want to entertain the idea of retroactively rewarding people who have put in thousands of hours of work for free because of a precedence? I held off submitting this proposal for a long time, mostly because I was completely new at game & avatar development two years ago, and did not feel I had the skillset to do Decentraland justice, so I squirrelled away and continued building what I could as I learned. Recently, I have had some incredibly solid feedback from people both in metaverse groups, and in professional settings, that made me realize that finally, the work I am doing has had a substantially positive impact, and added value not just to Decentraland, but to many other connected verticals (VTuber streaming, interoperability, and building bridges with 'Web 2' groups). Finally, I feel confident asking for this grant as I am certain the value I have brought far exceeds the portion of funds I am asking for, and as far as I can tell, most of the abstainers feel the same way. Truthfully, the DAO is already leaking funds for what often amounts to zero impact projects, I believe this grant can be a north star for comparisons of retroactively funding people who put in consistent work and persevered through the less glamourous times in web3 - if someone were to ask for a grant for streaming - I've funded that at what I believe to be a fair comparison - show me another Decentraland streamer who has streamed weekly for two years to over 20 concurrent viewers, hosting an event in the top 3 most active scenes every time - all whilst never asking for a grant, and I will happily vote for them to receive a similar amount.

Morph has moved mountains for this platform. His content is engaging and backed by a strong understanding of the financial system. When he speaks, I listen. I'm voting abstain for now, because I'm weary of grants that ask for back-pay. I think it's a valuable conversation for the community to begin having though. Morph deserves it, but like Cheddar and others said above, this is a slippery slope that we might be stepping foot on.

I think this opens the door for many of us that have been creating content around decentraland to get retroactive grants. In the same way, I am not in favor of purchasing equipment for grantees to create content (laptops, cameras, microphones, etc). Unless we are going to create a system to award all creators and develop a criteria for who and how much to award, I prefer to not give out retroactive grants for work where there was never an initial agreement for payment in the first place.

Damnn this is pro gamer move, fair play

To be honest I get the points, but considering that morph has done already done so much unpaid work for dcl aside from just this grant makes me vote **yes** personally. And I believe 100% that after this grant he will continue to do so.

Abstained for the reasons mentioned by @DOCTORdripp. This can set a bad precedent of everyone requesting social media retroactive funds for all their efforts.

56 subscribers on youtube

Perfectly reasonable, as always. Just feels like any work should be eligible for retroactive payment, if the work is effective. If anything, I think voting to support Morph's retroactive payment is setting a pretty high bar for anyone trying to get any grant in social media going forward, especially retro active ones.

Thank you @Morph - and I'll reiterate that it's not that you are not worth it, because to me you 100% are. My major take-away point is that Social Media should not support retroactive payments. Not for you, me, nor anyone else.

Cheers for input! I mostly agree with what has been written here, and for what it's worth, I feel that the social media aspect of this proposal is probably it's weakest aspect and is a large reason why I have only priced that portion at $850 for ~24 months of marketing. Overall, I don't think tweet impressions have a massive impact, but I do believe that proving a minimum reach of 6-figures has merit when combined with the other initiatives I have taken. I do ask you consider that the $850 marketing budgeted also includes multiple presentations given to interop groups such as MSF/OMI, as well as on-campus presentations at large companies (such as Microsoft/Meta) - although I'm unable to share these due to doxing restrictions so I can understand not considering these.