DAO Grant Program - Accountability Committee This proposal has been ENACTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)

GSS You have failed to follow your own rules here: [quote="dao, post:1, topic:17194"] if the concerns continue, they will send the arguments for the Accountability Committee to evaluate the case. This triggers a preventive revocation or a pause to the Vesting Contract. [/quote]

Hey Zino, Please consider adding the following: Due Diligence Committee This has a great overall mission in its name, which accomplishes reviewing grants, its risk and reviewing its contract. DCL DAO DDC Let's go! Thanks! Maryana

I think it should have the word Grant included in the title as it specifically deals with grant issues. Grant Accountability Committee or Grant Revocations Committee or Grant Review Squad.. woops, not squad Grant Review Committee.. yes.

Hello Community: Based on the comments regarding the name of the New Committee that will be in charge of revoking/pausing grants, we are opening a poll on Friday 13th so we can choose the most suitable name for it. The options so far are: - “Revocations Committee” - “Accountability Committee” Would you like to add any other? If so, please put it under the comments, with a brief explanation of why you think it is the most suitable, and we’ll add it to the poll list. Regards, Zino.

I'm interested in hearing Lords @HPrivakos master plan - I suspect a radical idea that could revolutionize decentraland.

**PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:** We have all the committees necessary, HPrivakos is on most of them, but this new one, he isn't on yet, so in that case: "too much centralization." [quote="HPrivakos, post:27, topic:17194"] It’s really sad to see that proposal pass, Committees goes against decentralization and we should aim to the end of them, not creating more. [/quote] This reminds me of my one of my favorite jokes: "*Why was the tyrant always stressed out?* Because he claimed to believe in decentralization of power, but had so many responsibilities!" Thou shall not ask @HPrivakos in a private message on what his plan of action is to remove his role in the Decentraland DAO. **If you do, don't worry you will never receive a response.** :joy: :joy: @HPrivakos Can we get a plan of action or a list of actions taken to move closer to decentralization? How have you moved closer to removing your roles and responsibilities to allow the DAO to become more decentralized?

It's really sad to see that proposal pass, Committees goes against decentralization and we should aim to the end of them, not creating more. That proposal is still unclear. Do all reports goes to the committee or does the GSS do a preselection, if the GSS does a preselection, then they already basically doing the decision, if they are not then it can be abused to drain the DAO by creating a unnecessary amount of reports costing 1k USD each time to the DAO

DAO Grant Program - Accountability Committee This proposal is now in status: PASSED. Voting Results: * Yes 57% 6,886,464 VP (55 votes) * No 43% 5,379,677 VP (20 votes)

@Zino @ginoct Would it not be possible to just elect 2-3 new GSS members that are solely used for revocation cases? They do not need to be a part of any of the pre-existing responsibilities within the GSS themselves, but if there is a need then they are buzzed and the per-case compensation kicks in. That's the only way I can see this being unbiased and not having to create a whole new committee.

I feel conflicted about this proposal, as there is a clear need and the spirit of the committee fills it, but I also hesitate if it should be a separate entity from the GSS. To me, it makes more sense to have these duties given to a section of the GSS maybe with a stipend per case, and expand or restructure the GSS as needed to make the workload manageable than it does to have two separate entities. Passing information from one committee to the next just creates opportunity for miscommunications that can be avoided by having the people already working closely with grantees and already responsible for accountability be given the task. I do understand the argument for the objective third party, but members of the GSS should be looking at grantees and their projects objectively regardless so it feels more unnecessary and complicated than beneficial.

Hi @CheddarQueso yes, for sure. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with an answer and hope it helps address your inquiry. * These two parts are explaining the same procedure but they are a bit different. It may create confusion… will the GSS send arguments to the committee “if the complaints continue” or within 4 days? The Accountability Committee starts to act when there is a formal request from any community member through a [form](https://forms.gle/UGF1wj9ueHzvWGPN8). The Grant Support Squad will request the grantee to respond to the concerns raised within 4 days. This means that the GSS will give 4 days to the Grantee to clarify the raised concerns. After that, if the complaints continue, the Grant Support Squad will send, in the course of 4 days, the arguments for the Accountability Committee to evaluate the case. So these first two steps have a duration of 8 days. * Once the GSS checks the objective information, will they make any recommendations for the accountability committee based on their findings? Will these arguments be available to the community? Yes. In this first stage, we will post our arguments on the proposal as we are doing at the present. * Something that is not spelled out here: If the GSS, over the course of the grant, finds that the grantee is not responsive, misses updates, or is otherwise not complying with the terms and conditions of the grant, they will send arguments to the accountability committee requesting the grant be revoked correct? Yes. with our arguments. Thank you again for your questions. Muchas gracias.

@Zino could you please clarify: [quote="dao, post:1, topic:17194"] * Any Community Member has the possibility to submit a request through a [form](https://forms.gle/UGF1wj9ueHzvWGPN8) to initiate the revision of a case whenever the grantee is suspected of not complying with the terms and conditions and the Grants Framework. * The Grant Support Squad will request the grantee to respond to the concerns raised and if the concerns continue, they will send the arguments for the Accountability Committee to evaluate the case. This triggers a preventive revocation or a pause to the Vesting Contract. * The Accountability Committee will study each case and will have the opportunity to request extra information regarding the case presented, and has the responsibility to provide a resolution to the community, which may be to revoke a Grant vesting contract as a final action; to resume a Grant vesting contract of a previously revoked or paused contract no older than six months; to revoke and create again the Grant vesting contract with a new proposed schedule. * Any of the outcomes will be executed by the DAO committee. [/quote] [quote="dao, post:1, topic:17194"] * The Accountability Committee starts to act when there is a formal request from any community member through a [form](https://forms.gle/UGF1wj9ueHzvWGPN8). The Grant Support Squad will request the grantee to respond to the concerns raised within 4 days. * After that, The Grant Support Squad will send, in the course of 4 days, the arguments for the Accountability Committee to evaluate the case. This triggers a preventive revocation or a pause to the Vesting Contract, later to be executed by the DAO committee. * Then, the Accountability Committee has 6 days to discuss the case among the 5 members. * During the period of 6 days, the Accountability Committee has the ability to request further information to the Grant Support Squad or the Grantee about the case presented, not exceeding 30 days. After that, the Accountability Committee has 5 days to publish the final resolution. [/quote] These two parts are explaining the same procedure but they are a bit different. It may create confusion.. will the GSS send arguments to the committee "if the complaints continue" or within 4 days? * Once the GSS checks the objective information, will they make any recommendations for the accountability committee based on their findings? Will these arguments be available to the community? * Something that is not spelled out here: If the GSS, over the course of the grant, finds that the grantee is not responsive, misses updates, or is otherwise not complying with the terms and conditions of the grant, they will send arguments to the accountability committee requesting the grant be revoked correct? Muchas gracias,

Until now, the way to set up working groups, their moderation and process was something ‘ad-hoc’. They emerged precisely from discussions, threads, relevant/complex topics and the need to discuss them in an ordered and well-focused environment. The Facilitation Squad has been supporting these working groups by setting them up and facilitating the discussion to obtain concrete outcomes. By iterating these working groups dynamic with an informal “process”, and considering each of the different experiences, we’ve discovered a pressing need to create more and better spaces for the community to exchange ideas and also a way to make more democratic the process to set up these groups. We want the different interested community members and stakeholders to take ownership in the discussions and to take a leading role to build and put together possible outputs (mainly aiming to binding governance proposals). The new group dynamics that we’re thinking on tend to decentralize, with the figure of the ‘facilitator’ more as a default attendant, not as a core or central figure in the process or with any kind of intrinsic “power”, not only by inviting different members of the community to get involved, empowering them and promoting them to reach different outcomes or build proposals, but even more, thinking that a formal process will give everyone a transparent and concrete possibility and a pathway to propose the set up of specific working groups. This semi-structured approach will be *one way* to tackle different issues, thinking in terms of efficiency and effectiveness to get concrete outcomes, but for sure will not become the exclusive one, since each community member will still have the possibility to adopt or choose other ways to channel their needs, discussions or concerns. We think this as an optimal, not as a must. Working groups were 'born' as an informal way to channel specific discussions, so to formalize a working group process it’s nothing more than giving a framework and some pathways to something that was in fact already existing.

In Town Halls and Discord threads, they usually were related to proposals that were complex and needed a multiplicity of voices to be solid.

Thank you for the clarification. How were these established prior to having a formalized process? When were they established?

:thinking: I didn't say anything about establishing formal groups, I said moderating (existing) working groups as they did with all these:  We still need to vote and define the formal process for establishing them.

[quote="ginoct, post:16, topic:17194"] A team of three individuals (with social sciences or artistic backgrounds) working on helping the community craft proposals, moderating working groups, organizing townhall, moderating social spaces, and creating content (Twitter, blog posts, and so on) regarding the DAO and its members. [/quote] You are giving them powers that have never went passed the pre-poll. They do NOT have the ability to establish formal working groups. https://governance.decentraland.org/proposal/?id=bcf89060-0e5c-11ed-9d53-7b405ea02bcb.

Happy to clarify this in my own words: * DAO Facilitation Squad A team of three individuals (with social sciences or artistic backgrounds) working on helping the community craft proposals, moderating working groups, organizing townhall, moderating social spaces, and creating content (Twitter, blog posts, and so on) regarding the DAO and its members. * DAO Governance Squad A team of three engineers, 1 product designer, and 1 product manager (hi!) working on the technical foundation of the DAO. main maintainers of governance.decentraland.org and the entire ecosystem of decision-making tools for the DAO. We also execute the binding outcomes of governance proposals that the DAO votes on and affects decision dynamics. * Grant Support Squad A team of three individuals (with business, technology & project management, and legal skills) overseeing the entire Grants program, ensuring the grantees meet their goals and contribute value to the DAO. They also operate as the nexus between the Decentraland Foundation and the grantees, especially for grant projects heavily technical. * DAO Committee - 2,400 USD payable in MANA each month A team of two (soon three) highly trusted individuals (Early contributors to the project and long-time community members) acting as a trusted human proxy to execute on-chain actions that the DAO votes. They are the ones for example that can access the DAO treasury and transfer money to pay for grants. > I am against for creating another committee and I thought it was responsibility of grant support squad already. The Grant Support Squad's primary responsibility is to help grantees succeed and help them with their goals and responsibilities. They are heavily involved with the teams, therefore they are definitely not the best actor to decide on a pausing/revocation because in order to make their work properly they have to build a lot of personal rapport with grantees. That's why I think a structure like this committee (Or something different but isolated from the GSS) is very much needed

Hello Community! Here are some answers to the concerns raised above: * We decided not to use the name “revocation” because it has a lot of negative connotations. However, now that the word is installed in the community, maybe it could be a good option to name this Committee “Grants Revocation Committee” * As @HPrivakos said, our main job its grants accountability, however, the final decision of revoking a vesting contract or not, should not be ours. We shouldn't have the “power” to judge and decide, as our decision can be biased on our own objective analysis. The grantees need a third party not involved in the process of analysis, to discuss if a revocation is necessary; we are creating mechanisms that will take care of the DAO treasury while protecting the grantees, who are the main motor of Decentraland growth on a longer run. * During 2022, 100 grants were approved, summing up a total of 6.2M$ USD; In the last 3 months that our squad started making revocations, we have requested the DAO committee to make 12 revocations/pauses, recovering 600K; So, if these actions were implemented by the New Committee the cost would have been 12.000 MANA, representing 0.2% of the total of the grants funded Let’s analyze the worst-case scenario; if all of those projects were revoked (100) by the New Committee, the cost would have been 100.000 Mana (1000 mana *100), representing 1.6% of the total of the grants funded; in other words, we think that the cost of the New Committee is not significant compared to the money invested in grants that are being revoked. * Ongoing proposals such as changes on the Grant Program that include new requirements for grantees like expected impacts and budgets, not only help the community make informed decisions when voting for a grant, but also will decrease preventively the passing of grantees that have to be revoked later on. . * Another point to mention is that when a formal request to initiate an investigation is submitted, the GSS analyzes and checks the objective information; So, if a lot of trolls submit non-objective information, the new committee would not be summoned, taking care of both: new committee members and DAO funds. Thank you all, Regards.

There are already multiple squads and committees, I am confused about what each squad/committee does and if their work doesn't overlap. Also a lot of DAO funds are going to these squads/committees: - DAO Facilitation Squad 78K - DAO Governance Squad 120K - Grant Support Squad 103K - DAO Committee - 2,400 USD payable in MANA each month I am against for creating another committee and I thought it was responsibility of grant support squad already.

[quote="dao, post:1, topic:17194"] The Accountability Committee will be constituted by 5 members and 2 substitutes. This committee selected by the Decentraland DAO Community is expected to be in office for twelve (12) months and the members could be re-elected only for one consecutive period. Each committee member will be compensated with 200 USD in MANA per Grant case analyzed, paid by the DAO treasury and executed by the DAO committee once the verdict has been posted on the Grant Proposal page [/quote] :face_with_peeking_eye:

How much does the DAO have to pay for this new committees compensation?

Why can't the community make the decision in a poll, based on the recommendations and reasons suggested by the GSS? I guess we already had that vote.. but that would have been my choice. :confused:

I know this ship has sailed... but I maintain that this whole separate committee thing is going overboard. The GSS does all the due diligence in making their recommendation, they give plenty of opportunity for communication, explanations and workarounds... and they publish the reasoning behind their recommendations in the grant page and on discord channel for each grant... the community can also bring forth their concerns and there is even a form you can fill out... the GSS recommendation can be made into a proposal so the community can vote on it and the DAO committee can execute the revoke or pause of the vesting contract. We have two great committees doing all the work.. I just find it wasteful to make a whole-nother committee just to bang the gavel. It is lengthening a process that has been well investigated and nearly decided by the GSS and the community. Over the next 10 years the DAO budget requirements will grow and it's important we maximize every dollar. Adding another decision layer to a revocation process is not worth 1K USD for each case. Especially when it's paid in MANA.