Glad to see brand new accounts telling us whats best for the DAO. Sorry @Siveria next time I'm going to ask you before voting. ;) 

Yep it's even worse than that because Mana will be traded for Eth (sold) without any new projects being done for the exchange.

So, it seems other metaverses will be creating interesting projects in 2024. The grant program attracts not only users but also creators, and creators attract users while investing in the development of their project with social resources included. As a creator and landowner, I was very excited to see the news about the grant program and share it with my acquaintances. But the joy was short-lived. Maybe we can arrange another vote?

Hello community! I am quite upset with the DAO's decision to shut down the entire grant program and leave only the platform and infrastructure. Work on this has been ongoing for quite some time. Currently, there isn't much truly interesting activity in Decentraland, and other metaverses are actively developing as well. As someone who wants to develop their project specifically in Decentraland and as part of the community, I want to emphasize that marketing, awareness, and other projects are just as important as infrastructure. Building a community in competitive conditions also takes a considerable amount of time. So, it's very unfortunate; I hope that this decision will be reconsidered. "Stop funding grants outside of the Platform category for all of 2024" - This is such a Risky and Foresight-lacking proposal and decision

Well, I didn't expect this to pass, so I spent a couple of hours making a better version. Would hate for no one to get a chance to read it. Hopefully everyone learned a valuable lesson: Core Units should participate in giving feedback on proposals they don't like when they get millions and ten+ Million of VP in support Poll and Draft stages, and I should still try to write a decent prop even if I'm frustrated none of the core units are giving meaningful feedback. Well, the grand experiment rolls on. **BINDING GOVERNANCE PROPOSAL** **Freeze majority of Grant Program Spending [resubmission]** ## **Title** Freeze majority of Grant Program Spending [resubmission] ## **Summary** Stop spending mana on anything other than improving the platform's technical capabilities or Core Units dedicated to addressing the systemic issues plaguing the Decentraland DAO. **Abstract** Consensus in the community is that while we all believe in the platform's future, it has yet to become Ready Player One and the Metaverse of our dreams. This proposal aims to freeze grant spending on anything other than platform grants to improve the technical abilities of DCL for the entirety of 2024 or until the systemic issues that plague the DAO are addressed and a proposal to reverse the freeze is enacted. The last Grant Program freeze saw the creation of the current Budgeting System (https://forum.decentraland.org/t/dao-520c3a3-dao-grants-program-budgeting-system/17104) and Grant Categories and Requirements (https://docs.decentraland.org/player/general/dao/overview/grants-program/), as well as the foundation for what went on to become the Grant Revocation Committee. Throughout this freeze, we will review what has worked and address the areas that continue to fall short. **Motivation** There is great concern in the dao around sustainability, effective use of resources, and the very system of governance we use to determine how to spend our finite resources. Since voter fatigue is a genuine issue, it only makes sense to pause the majority of grant spending to allow the community to focus on addressing the current core issues. Not only do we need to define Grant Categories better and stabilize the foundation of our DAO Grant Program, but we also need to come together and make a good-faith effort to address how our governance voting works. Whether that means implementing a quadratic voting system or eliminating delegation is a conversation for another day. What is important is that we reduce the noise in the room and focus on fixing fundamental issues in the governance process. It simply does not make sense to continue using a system we all agree is broken and not generating meaningful results while we attempt to fix it. Fixing your boat's hull is easier when it isn't actively taking on water. **Specification** * Freeze Grant Categories, excluding Platform and Core Unit. * No new Core Units. Only Governance, Grant Support Squad, and Facilitation Squad will be eligible to apply in those categories for the remainder of 2024. * Reduce the Core Unit budget to a maximum of 7.5% from its current 15% of the current budget, but never more than $100k (I was going to make it a flat 5%, but after discussing with Fehz, I want to leave wiggle room in case MANA drops, as it appears that community consensus is those teams are doing valuable work, and we will need them to help see us through this process. * Leave the Platform budget at 50%, as was just passed. * Save the remainder and do not consider that "unspent budget" when it comes to other proposals looking to use unspent grant money for different purposes. * Increase voter threshold requirements from a simple majority to a 75% support threshold. While Grants are Frozen: * Better define existing categories. * Create a DAO Price Guide; shout out to Maryana, who first suggested this, but create a document that defines what is considered acceptable to spend on things like development, wearable creation, blog posts, etc. Ideally, the Grant Support Squad will take the lead on this since they should have little going on in the 2nd half of 2024 if this is to pass. Still, it would also be ideal if the community, which is so quick to criticize governance they don't like, took an active role in creating solutions instead of simply pointing out problems. But if neither the GSS nor the community is interested in taking the lead on this issue, I'm more than happy to continue having the world's saddest hobby and spending my free time thinking about improving the DAO Grant Program. * Focus on solutions to the current governance process and voting system. While to some, this means eliminating delegation, and to others, it means finding a way to give a voice to those who currently spend a great deal of time working in Decentraland but do not have a sizeable amount of VP, we can spend this time focusing on discussing solutions to the agree upon issue that the voting system is broken and not generating the results anyone is happy with. * Increasing the Voter threshold from a simple majority to 75% will make it much more difficult for low-effort Platform grants to receive funding and should have no impact on Core Unit grants that historically have received overwhelming support. **Impacts** Reducing the Core Unit Category from 15% to 7.5% of the current budget with a quarterly cap of $100k should not have a meaningful impact as the only existing squad to request more $100k in their last renewal was the Governance Squad, and they stated that in the future, they would be focusing on maintenance grants that would be much cheaper going forward. By reducing that category budget and stating there will be no new units formed, we can significantly decrease the chances for others to attempt to take advantage of that category for personal gain. Eliminating other grant categories will not impact what the DAO can fund. It will simply require the bidding and tendering process, making it more difficult for individuals to "drain the dao" without allowing others to come and do the work for a lower price. Creating a DAO Price Guide will help the community identify flawed grants early, the GSS will freeze them sooner, and the Revocation committee will have an objective tool when deciding how to take action. Attempting to fix the systemic issues with the DAO Voting can only strengthen us in the long run. However, it is undoubtedly a daunting task that will almost certainly leave a good portion of the community unsatisfied with the chosen solution. **Implementation Pathways** If and When this Prop passes * All existing PASSED can run their course. * Active grants submitted after this proposal will also be considered invalid. * No new grants can be submitted, and any existing grants being voted on, other than Platform Category Grants or future Core Unit Grants for Facilitation Squad, Governance. **Conclusion** It is in the best interest of Decentraland and DAO's long-term health to focus on building a solid foundation. By concentrating all of the Community energy on solidifying that foundation, we can remove much of the noise, distraction, and bickering plaguing the DAO.

They are currently being paid by grants, and work doesn't stop until those grants are complete. This period would allow for a staff reorganization and reduction which makes sense since there would be much less to do.

Governance Squad just passed a grant, so would seem the issue won't need a definitive answer for 5 months. Two possible solutions that come to mind: 1) Platform Grant, the are shipping code after all. 2) Join the Facilitation Squad; nothing prevents the Facilitation Squad from expanding the things it facilitates.

If core unit grants are excluded now except Facilitation squad, who will work to apply this kind of changes? So, will the Facilitation squad instead of the Gov App squad apply this change to the Gov app?

Incorrect. Read the words that I type and nothing more.

Just to be clear, your position is "I will only support a proposal that already has fixes planned for everything? There is no possible way that if the prop that creates the time needed to address issues doesn't call out a plan on how the proposer will personally fix all the issues, we should not take any action." Or am I putting too many words into your mouth?

 What an amazing bullrun we are in =)

Lets waste 10 months creating no content in DCL during a bull run? How about we actually solve the underlying problems with misuse of DAO funding right now? Everyone wants to fix the system but no one has any suggestions, lets create a long list of possible solutions to address the concerns and start immediately reforming the grant request process. A grant freeze does not propose any solutions to the underlying problems, its just a delay to fix the problems later. How about we take real measures to fix the problems now? I have already proposed 8 possible solutions so feel free to add to my list if you want to actually fix the system instead of just endlessly talk about it. Let's start fixing the problems with fair reforms instead of procrastinating for 10 months. How about for every grant request we have a new process: poll, trial, final request? 3 stages of voting would create significant transparency around voting and hold voters responsible. How about we lower the quarterly budget and save money that way? This grant freeze idea would reserve 50% of the budget, but I have already suggested a 30% reduction in a poll. You want to shut down all funding for games and events over 20%? How is a budget reduction not a more reasonable solution than this proposal? Feel free to agree or disagree with any of my ideas. Lets start reforming the grant process now, 10 months is too long to wait because we are in a bull run and need to produce more content to get more daily active users.

That is not part of this proposal. My whole point is that we don’t fully think things out before slapping a proposal together. Let’s create an action plan to accompany the pause.

We will have 10 months to plan that, if we could do it without pausing grants we would not need this proposal

I am for those types of changes; however, this proposal mentions none of that and that's why this proposal needs to be rejected. The **Motivation** and **Conclusion** sections mention no action plans to improve anything or anything remotely close to what you have stated.

We would have a year to rework the grant system, while the platform is being improved. Grants for other categories would still be possible, but through bid&tendering, which would hopefully improve competition and lower costs

Yea, burn rate is interesting. However, to improve anything, the vp system and the way grants get passed has to be fixed. If you don't fix that, it won't matter how much money is "saved" for the future of the DAO. Pausing funding now for the future or spending it now will not change how grants get passed; so we would just be delaying the same "insanity" loop of passing less than stellar grants. I'm very curious though for those who voted "yes" so far, what exactly would you be holding funds for in the future? Better content? Better gaming studios to come in and develop? What would be different in the future if we just held funds without changing anything else?

I think having difference of opinions is healthy in this space- as long as we do it in the professional manner and have a compelling argument. Again, I do believe some changes are needed because it is quite alarming at this current burn rate. But to implement another freeze would be a grave error.

It does seem like grant recipients are using a lot of @esteban's VP to vote against an idea he said he supported.  Not to suggest all the people captured in this image are nefarious. Just an observation.

In philosophy, "**有舍必有得**" can be understood as a universal principle of balance in life, reflecting the inherent connection between action and consequence. This principle suggests that, typically, to gain some benefit or advantage, one must make corresponding sacrifices or relinquishments. It implies that in the pursuit of goals or ideals, individuals often need to make decisions involving trade-offs. Sacrificing certain things may entail short-term pain or loss, but in the long run, such sacrifices may lead to greater gains or achievements. Therefore, "**有舍必有得**" reflects a universal causal relationship in life, emphasizing the necessity for individuals to balance choices and sacrifices in decision-making.

Voting No on this proposal. I completely understand and empathize with the concerns people raised, and it is commendable to bring attention to the fact that if we continue spending money at our current burn rate, we will deplete our funds. Change is necessary. However, I believe that completely halting the grants program would be a critical error. Although, I think it would be great to continue leveraging the in-platform grant category for new games, tools, etc. Their benefits would be completely diminished if no one knew it existed (individuals outside of Decentraland). In addition, Decentraland functions seamlessly with the aid of its squads and committees. I believe that freezing the grants program would have a direct impact on them. Furthermore, I firmly believe that having funds allocated to support marketing and content creation is crucial for the success of Decentraland. Nifty Island for instance, has made a highly successful launch and many individuals continue to speak very highly on the platform. I anticipate though within the next year or two, additional competitors will also enter this domain. If we freeze grants now, I foresee a very dim future for Decentraland. Again, I do think it was great to raise the flag, but we shouldn’t completely freeze it again. Possible alternatives we could implement a maximum cap (which was previously suggested) of no more then 80K and / or increase the value of VP for certain amounts. I believe that incorporating these standards would help enhance creativity in this domain without imposing any limitations. These guidelines can also be reviewed on a semi-annual or quarterly basis for their effectiveness.

This grant freeze idea is a disaster. It is a celebration of the lack of common business sense that certain whales have because they are never inworld to play the game they're invested in. Shutting down all funding for games and events will cause DCL to lose daily active users. Daily active users = price of MANA = value of the DAO treasury The bear market for MANA that this proposal could create would cause a more significant loss of treasury value than spending funds that do not always provide ROI for the DAO. Business is all about risk, sometimes projects don't work out and we lose our investment. 99% of all small businesses fail, we need to keep gambling on new grants to find the 1% that will bring MANA back to an all time high and give 100x returns on DAO investment. There are more reasonable and less destructive alternatives to a grant freeze that would address the underlying concerns about corruption and misuse of DAO funding. 1) Reduce budget for all categories by up to 30% depending on a community vote 2) Increase the authority of the revocation committee to initiate community votes on whether a grant should be revoked or not. Now that Esteban is active in the DAO again, there should be no fear of any certain group being able to override the decentralized will of the community because we can trust him to have the best intentions of DCL in mind. 3) Esteban could redistribute VP to align better with his vision of the future. If someone is abusing their VP in his opinion, then it would be a simple solution to redelegate that VP to community members he trusts. This would help him not waste time having to look through everyone's proposal each week and have to potentially spend hours deciding who deserves a grant and who doesn't. This is an understandable burden that I believe is influencing his support of this proposal. 4) Make grants have to go through a 2 stage voting process similar to polls. This would allow a longer period of time for the merits of the new grant requests to be questioned and ultimately reduce corruption by exposing hidden flaws that can not be found during the relatively short 14 day process we currently have. 5) Give the revocation committee, DAO committee, Governance Squad, and GSS an increased level of combined authority over the revocation process 6) Allow grant requests to only be resubmitted 2 or 3 times per quarter 7) Require all grant requests to have an initial 1 month trial to see if the project deserves the DAO's risk of being funded for 2-6 months 8) Reducing the overall budget of the DAO's spending each quarter is the most reasonable alternative to a grant freeze. Without DAO funding there is no incentive for creators in DCL to create anything because of the opportunity costs of working for someone else. The effect of a grant freeze would be a loss of daily active users which would cause the treasury to lose value, the premise this proposal is based on is invalid as it will have the opposite of the intended effect of protecting the treasury. We should reduce the budget for a limited amount of time to properly address the underlying problems in the current DAO structure. 

(post deleted by author)

[quote="dclchess, post:85, topic:21756"] The value of the treasury is in the price of MANA, which is directly tied to the amount of daily active users. [/quote] Prove this hypothesis. The overwhelming majority of MANA is held by people who either founded the platform or have never stepped foot it in it. [quote="dclchess, post:85, topic:21756"] Does everyone voting yes for a freeze really want to have a DCL without TRU or Dollhouse? [/quote] You are just repeating the same flawed argument from your last comment. Again, the only person paid by TRUs grant is Shelly. Do you think MrSwe will stop performing at his new venue because Shelly is no longer getting paid? [quote="dclchess, post:85, topic:21756"] We can not expect endless content for free just because of love and passion, this proposal is insulting to the years of hard work that community members have invested into their businesses. [/quote] The dao doesn't exist to fund anyone's failed business ventures. [quote="dclchess, post:85, topic:21756"] Please delete this proposal if you truly love DCL and want to see more players discover the magical place we all call home, decentraland. [/quote] This is an absurd argument that lacks integrity. Some random alt account is hiding behind a fake name, making false arguments about how the community doesn't care about being mocked because it believes in decentralization. The majority of grant recipients could care less about decentralization. And nothing you wrote in that paragraph justifies the existence of grants funding bad projects. The grant program should be frozen because everyone here seems to only be here to get paid by the grant program. There are literally countless examples of games and communities that exist without people needing to be paid to be there and making content because they enjoy it. That is infact the best way to build a sustainable community. Again, the prop is failing, so stop being dramatic. I will refrain from replying to your next comment, which I suspect will just be a repetitive summary about how the babydolls and Shelly's grant are what is keeping DCL alive.

You didn't address what I wrote at all. I see no reason to pretend otherwise. You don't get to go "one question" and then waste my time answering it to then spout out something new. That isn't intellectually honest engagement. And last time I spoke to tangpoko she had no intention of asking for another grant, and based on the GSS's comments on Shelly's last prop, it doesn't seem like she's following through. And to be clear, the only person the TRU prop pays is Shelly. Literally, all the performers there are only performing because they love DCL, so your argument is further invalid.