Hi friends! After a nurturing discussion on the poll about the procedure to revoke a grant, the community saw it necessary to split the poll into two separate questions, so this is the new Poll. We’d love to hear your opinion regarding the decision making. Here's the new proposal: https://governance.decentraland.org/proposal/?id=823c92e0-2ad2-11ed-ac99-5bece7edccd0

one day all this will be automated on contract with stipulations in code. We are so early

Not sure of that context, but a proposal is a contract IMO between the dao team and the person(s) submitting the proposal. Therefore, I feel it is the duty of the dao team to check progress and revoke funds if performance has not been met by the other party.

late to the party here on the forum! But question for you @lastraum @DrGreenthumb when you say "decided on by the DAO" do you mean this should be a straight up DAO Vote?

Hi everyone, Thank you for taking the time and devoting attention to give feedback on this proposal. The Grant Support Squad is constantly working to improve the support to the community and your words helped a lot. Based on your input and our research, we’ve decided to divide the poll into two, which are the following: 1. **Who should make the decision of revoking grants?** a).Community Decides; b) DAO committee decides; c). New committee decides; d). Do nothing. 2. **A second poll might** be held to define the method of procedure, the actors defined previously on poll 1 discuss the methodology, and document this procedure publicly to give clarity to the community. About the list of practices that raise concerns, our proposal is to raise these concerns on a case by case basis to the entity defined in poll 1. Thanks again for your committed contributions! @yararasita , @palewin & Zino.

Procedure to revoke a grant This proposal is now in status: REJECTED. Voting Results: * Community decides 1% 514 VP (6 votes) * Dao committee decides 19% 1,075,671 VP (49 votes) * New committee decides 9% 535,703 VP (14 votes) * Do nothing 0% 0 VP (0 votes) * Invalid question/options 71% 4,023,764 VP (4 votes)

Yes, the smart contract can be changed for future proposals in order to make improvements. I'm not sure if it's is good idea to change the terms on already closed agreements, I think current vesting contracts should fit to the terms that were defined when the proposal was passed: https://docs.decentraland.org/decentraland/receiving-grants/

Heyhey! Sorry for the delay in replying, however, I've been traveling and internet has been scarce! Overall, I want to applaud the Grant Support Squad for the work done on this proposal, and I wanted to extend my gratitude to the three of you for starting this conversation and putting these ideas together (@Zino @yararasita @palewin) There are some fantastic points and ideas being shared here, however, I do believe @AwedJob said it best when they pointed out there's two things being addressed by this poll: > 1. Decide on how to revoke a grant > 2. The practices not yet defined in the terms and conditions which have raised concerns. I believe the *reasons* for revoking a grant, and the *process* in which grants are revoked should be two separate discussions, run on two separate polls (which would allow more users to contribute to the underlying specificities of the proposal, instead of having two overlapping conversations/debates). As an example; I feel like it would be much easier for us to agree on the reasons for revoking a grant, as opposed to the methods in which those ideals would be 'enforced'. This will at least give us shared guiding documents/principles which we can start using as foundational building blocks for a code-of-ethics system for grants, and an overall better understanding, from a communal perspective, on what best practices we should actively look for (and employ) into each and every grant. There are a lot of moving parts to this discussion, and I feel it would be best for us to be thorough and laser-focused on each point. Hope my reasoning makes sense to you! :pray:

As the Grant Support Squad is doing its best to involve the community on delicate cases such as revocation of a grant based on practices that raise concerns, I wonder in which way @MetaArchs are you suggesting that this poll or its options are invalid (maybe @Seanny can help us?). Governance power should be used with commitment and responsibility. It is in the spirit of the squad to involve the community as much as we can in our process design, so the question remains: who should be involved in the process of revoking a grant? I hope we can understand your take on this, so we can move in a direction that takes your argument into account to make it better in the future.

Thank you Pablo!, As a first stage, we wanted to understand what the community thought about who should make the decision and the process will be designed with these persons involved. Obviously once we have this first step decided with those input.

Hi Pablo! Thank you so much for taking the time to review this poll. The focus of the Proposal is to expose to the community that there are practices not yet defined in the terms and conditions which have raised concerns. So, to make sure we guarantee an efficient use of the community treasury, we want to ask the community who should decide to revoke a Grant. This poll doesn't mean that, if we detect some of these practices, the Grant will be automatically revoked without previous study of their cases. And the second case: We are aware of the legal/tax problems that any grantee could have in their country about crypto currency. But, if a Grantee can´t release the funds for that reason or at least hasn't found a way to do it, it shows that they don't have the ability to manage the funds, and that's the concern. When the community approves a grant, they are approving a team that can deploy the project. And it's important that each team has the ability to manage funds with the regulations of their own country.

[quote="pablo, post:14, topic:14282"] Also be aware that, **there is another option besides revokation, which is to pause the vesting contract,** that is, that only the admin can interact with it but funds can remain in the contract. [/quote] There is no way to pause a vesting contract with the current smartcontract, but a vesting contract can always be recreated in the future if needed.

I agree i think a separate committee that can investigate further, get feedback from the communiy and put it to a vote is the way to. It avoids the foundation/DAO conflict. Allows both entities to focus on other things and can make for a more thorough investigation. If its already been 30 days with no contact from someone and no way contact them, i think thats more than enough time. But a freeze for a set duration while an investigstion is held is reasonable.

I see two things being addressed by this poll: 1. Decide on how to revoke a grant 2. The practices not yet defined in the terms and conditions which have raised concerns. These should be separated out and dealt with accordingly. Define more clearly certain practices that violate the terms of the grant. Be clear about expectations and logical consequences of not meeting them. I agree with @lastraum that the DAO issues and monitors the grant and should be the entity to revoke the grant. The community can request a revocation of a grant through a vote of no confidence. That would be a separate process.

[quote="Tobik, post:10, topic:14282"] Moreover, the Decentraland Foundation and the DAO are two separate entities so I’m not sure why it should even matter. [/quote] Agreeing with @Tobik on this, the Foundation and the DAO are completely separated entities without any connection whatsoever (on the task of funding projects). This proposal is implying a connection between the two entities.

Having a legal background myself, would love to learn more about how "revoking a grant" would be possible in a legally compliant way. Have done a bit of research on DAO regulation and it seems like a complex topic to tackle Great idea otherwise.

I want to clarify, when I suggest a new committee, it wasn't to give community or individuals access to the facilitation of the revoking, as in handling wallets, etc, but more so in the decision making process of when a grant will be considered for revoking, or pausing of funds. I know @HPrivakos suggested a jury, but I'm not sure the technical application of a jury works in this sense. I feel it should be an agreement between DAO committee members and the community on what happens in situations like this regarding the DAO. Not so much an overseer who gives a verdict based on a community decision. I'm also basing this off of US justice system juries FYI, which is extremely corrupt and flawed. So if there's a more appropriate jury I should be considering, pls lmk. This committee wouldn't be entirely new ppl either, but ppl already working hard for the DAO committee/wearable committee/security board + members of the community. But how that looks and how many I'm unsure of the best route forward. At one point the idea of councils was mentioned, unrelated to this situation, and I wonder if councils were created to help with the interests of diff groups, and they came together for decisions like this not just revoking of grants?

I think this proposal needs some more refinement. First, @pablo makes a good point that there should be more options than just revocation, including pausing the contract until the project team can turn things around. It also seems problematic to appoint a committee to revoke a grant for some cause that's not mentioned in the formal terms and conditions of the grant agreement. Shouldn't we talk about changing the formal terms and conditions instead?

It's true that there is already a mid point between DAO and Committee (or squad): - The DAO defines general rules to execute revokations. - Comittee or Squad works for the DAO to apply the rules and execute revokations. (the same way Comittee executes the grants with a defined rules) The committee should already execute revokations based on the defined rules. Is there already a grant failing to accomplish the current rules? If so, how a revokation could be executed? Because if there is already a grant that should be revoked and it is not happening, the problem is not in the rules, it's on the execution process and what need to be fixed before. It's clear to me that the work of a team (squad) is necessary to detect flaws in accomplishments. Also, I see having to pass a DAO proposal to execute a revokation ineffective. Also be aware that, **there is another option besides revokation, which is to pause the vesting contract,** that is, that only the admin can interact with it but funds can remain in the contract. As I don't see the proposal 100% clear, I'm going to turn my vote. I would vote for each rule separated and being more specific, I see some too ambiguous. Also I would suggest for some of the rules to apply a pause instead of a revokation.

I agree with lastraum. Id assume the ones voting for new committe will be the ones trying to be just that. This should be handled by the DAO and not a new committe. Dont need more committes like @HPrivakos has stated.

I think this should be handled by the DAO. The grant "contract" is voted on by the community but enacted between the DAO and the Grantee. The funds come from the DAO; therefore, it should be their responsibility to oversee and manage each passed grant; no new committee or no community oversight should happen.

I'm voting DAO committee but would rather see that represent DAO selecting a 10-12 user jury to decide after a revoke request has been approved so their time isn't taken up and also prevents any form of corruption in the result. Then when users object to a decision the jury can have time to explain their vote for or against rejecting a proposal. (love this decentralized solution from @HPrivakos ) Especially if there's some issues that have a split community, it takes the weight off the DAO committee and prevents any backlash. Some of these decisions can be quite hard to make for just a single committee~ I wonder if funds or grant request is suspended till revoke request is completed. I also hope having a central body looking at these requests will prevent the option being spammed in future! (Like the ban a name requests) If the same request is coming up of the request is spam they can choose to disregard action till the revoke has completed its voting period.

I agree with keeping the current DAO committe **but I also disagree** with stopping the funding if the project receives financial support from the Decentraland Foundation and when the grantee has not released the funds vested after 2 months. Pablo is right, using DAO funds can be something risky for some people. You cannot invoice anyone because there is no entity behind and the idea to create it [was rejected last month](https://governance.decentraland.org/proposal/?id=e7077400-0120-11ed-8f44-ef1722f0509f). Moreover, the Decentraland Foundation and the DAO are two separate entities so I'm not sure why it should even matter.

I'm in favour of the current DAO committee (with assitance from Grant Support Squad) to decide for now with same reasons other users exposed, and because this will make the funds more efficient for Decentraland success, then voting yes here (changed vote with reasons on other comment). However, while some points seems pretty clear to me, I have my doubts on others: ***When the project is already getting financial support from the Decentraland Foundation.*** Does this mean all Decentraland Foundation funding contracts will be public? Does the amount of the funding makes any difference? What I would see beneficial is that Decentraland Foundation let the community know about funding contracts for better decissions, but I don't think this point should be a rule for revoking a grant. Even when it happens that a team is funded from DAO and also from private entities, it can be beneficial for Decentraland. **When the grantee has not released the funds vested after 2 months the vesting contract was enacted.** If all other points are accomplished, I don't see the benefit on this point. From my own experience, using DAO funds is legally difficult, and could take some time to resolve while the teams can put their own resources (life savings, own company funds, etc.) while the matter is resolved. If everything else that is promised is accomplished and the team is reachable, I don't see the need for this one.

I'm in favor of reducing committees, so I don't think creating a new one would be a good solution. I like the jury idea, it allows the community to vote while being quicker than a proposal and less subject to big VP holders orienting the vote. We could have a system on discord that select voluntary users via a provably fair method to be part of a jury.