[ADDENDUM] Establishing an Executive Arm to improve DAO Operations This proposal has been ENACTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)

23.27M MANA (-$6,128,911.54) have been transferred to the Council/Regenesis Lab multi-sig wallet. This means that the new DAO OpCo has funds to start operating. $125kUSDT were also sent before this transaction to advance funds quickly for salaries, given that the release of funds from the Aragon smart contract is not immediate.

[ADDENDUM] Establishing an Executive Arm to improve DAO Operations This proposal is now in status: PASSED. Voting Results: * Yes 96% 13,034,868 VP (48 votes) * No 1% 173,706 VP (5 votes) * Abstain 3% 497,656 VP (8 votes)

I was going to suggest implementing a module that would allow delegating day to day transactions to other signers, but this solution also seems valid. Thanks Gino for your kind attention.

The setup **for the time being is**: - 3/5, Regenesis Labs holds two keys, so any transaction will require **at least** 1 Council signature - I've added a Zodiac Delay-modifier module to the multisig, so between the proposed tx and the execution, there is a 24-hour delay with a 48-hour expiration. See: https://etherscan.io/address/0x5865Ea64655e386de86aa1860064a1C8cCBbEf66#code This will work for now, where at least 1 Council signature is required. Once we get to the point where we have 3 trusted Regenesis Labs signatures and the power balance of this multisig is modified, we will either have to use SafeSnap (I think it's too complex for our use case) or code a custom module to allow some signers to block the tx during the cooldown period.

[quote="ginoct, post:9, topic:24382"] the Council signers could block the transaction. [/quote] That highly depend how the multisig is setup, with a vanilla Gnosis Safe 3-out-of-5 the Executive Arm could just transfer all the funds and the council would have no way to block it. If we cared about the safety of the funds against misuses, we would simply not transfer it all at once. Unless you use something like [SnapSafe](https://medium.com/gnosis-pm/introducing-safesnap-the-first-in-a-decentralized-governance-tool-suite-for-the-gnosis-safe-ea67eb95c34f) but in which case it would be composed of only Council members I think. We might as well have the multisig only composed of OpCo members as with a 3-out-5 setup and 2 members of the council in it, in case of a full veto, if the OpCo don't want to send back the funds the Council can't do anything about it anyways.

Hi @PunkPink, just to clarify: the multisig wallet we’re referring to is the one holding the operational budget for the Executive Arm (Regenesis Labs). That’s why it requires signatures from members of that organization. Some Council members are also signers of the wallet, which ensures that the community retains oversight of these funds. For example, if someone attempted to misuse the funds, the Council signers could block the transaction. If the wallet were composed only of Council members, how would Regenesis Labs be expected to operate? It would be inefficient to request Council approval every time we need to pay a salary, cover a subscription, or handle routine expenses.

Hello Gino, thank you for your interest. I think that the Council members should be the ones with the 5 signatures, since granting 3 signatures to someone other than them could invalidate certain Council decisions. I want to remind that the current Council was elected by voters, and this distribution of signers would trivialize the entire governance process we go through to elect representatives. Could you share the reasons for this decision?

@PunkPink Hi! I'd like to understand your concerns and try to address any doubts you might have. Let me know!

I vote ABSTAIN and stand with @maraoz :saluting_face: :orange_heart: he is right. This corruption has gone on long enough.

Oh, didn't answer your question because you hadn't asked this question before. Here are my thoughts: [quote="BET, post:4, topic:24382"] 2022: People were voted in to manage the budget.. They claimed it was a success but people left decentraland because they wasn’t getting paid for their work. Which resulted in more people leaving due to lack of content. [/quote] Who was voted to manage the budget? And who wasn't getting paid for their work? The budget was distributed through open community voting on proposals. The GSS was responsible for ensuring grantees fulfilled their commitments, and they did (They actually recovered more than $800K for the DAO treasury, they basically paid themselves for their work by recovering more than they spent). The problem is not about the deliverables, but the lack of strategy. No one was tasked with the objective of setting up strategies for what the DAO should invest in. Now we have the DAO Council to set up the strategy, and Regenesis Labs as a tool to allocate resources to projects. [quote="BET, post:4, topic:24382"] 2023: We implement an upgrade that destroyed everyone’s builds. Forcing developers to rebuild. More people left. [/quote] Agree with this, but the DAO did what they could: Funded a team tasked with the mission of helping builders to migrate from SDK6 to SDK7 was created and did a pretty good job. You can check their updates [here](https://decentraland.org/governance/project/?id=3e7b237-7d0c-4077-b133-f5a6e510912e) or browse the repository to see all the scenes they migrated. [quote="BET, post:4, topic:24382"] 2024: People were starting to question where the $m’s were being spent. Turns out it was mainly on salaries. Hence the $9k a month meme. [/quote] Could you back this statement with data? Because I can prove you wrong right away: If you consider all the Core Units grants (I guess that's what you refer to with "people on the payroll", and let me clarify, being a grantee is waaaaay different from being on a payroll) they account for $1.6M over 3 years, that's about 11.1% of the funds distributed via the Grants program. [quote="BET, post:4, topic:24382"] Why did we do all of that circus to leave the unsuccessful grant system just to pay the same people to do the same jobs that didn’t work before? [/quote] None of the previous core units remain active, except the Protocol Squad, which is building something that both I and the DAO Council (elected by the community) consider critical to Decentraland’s future, that is a VR, a mobile and a web client in case the existing web client gets deprecated by Foundation. I've been hired to do something different than what I've been doing in the past as a Product Manager, so I don't think that applies.

Forgive my confusion but you didn't really answer any of my questions.. So let me clarify this: 2022: People were voted in to manage the budget.. They claimed it was a success but people left decentraland because they wasn't getting paid for their work. Which resulted in more people leaving due to lack of content. 2023: We implement an upgrade that destroyed everyone's builds. Forcing developers to rebuild. More people left. 2024: People were starting to question where the $m's were being spent. Turns out it was mainly on salaries. Hence the $9k a month meme. Various grants were starting to build up and the content provided was insufficient. If those same people were to ask for more $ then it would of destroyed the DAO because people didn't believe in the competency of the people in charge. We all agreed that grants should be paused. No more money was to be spent. 2025: A new vision is proposed by the same people that were on the payroll before. A lot of people are sceptical about the branding of an executive arm and the over-reach that they will have. It is voted in and now these same people are back on their salaries. Why did we do all of that circus to leave the unsuccessful grant system just to pay the same people to do the same jobs that didn't work before?

Hi @BET, the “DAI equivalent” reference means that the DAO Committee will transfer just the portion of funds needed to cover salaries and services from May in stablecoins. This is because the Committee already has the mechanisms to do so, and Regenesis Labs, as an entity, does not. Since the DAO Committee requested this proposal, which delayed Regenesis Labs’ funding and, as a result, the monthly compensation, I’ve asked the Committee members to simplify things by transferring a percentage in stablecoins so I can proceed with payments immediately. The remainder of the funds will be transferred in MANA.

Disagree with the (or DAI equivalent) statement because it makes things confusing.. Or DAI equivalent based on what? Market value? Based on where? Why don't we focus on paying people in MANA. If the builders don't believe in the token then the money will be wasted. Do you guys need all this money now? Or are we just over-estimating to make sure that the Executive Arm can maintain it's strong political position for a long time?