Framework for New Committee who decides when to revoke grants -Updated proposal This proposal is now in status: PASSED. Voting Results: * Yes 99% 2,138,241 VP (96 votes) * No 1% 1 VP (1 votes)

@Zino I also have another question. Will this be a fair process when it comes to choosing applicants? I know there was mentions in the past about specific people being chosen. I know it's fairly easy to put up a posting for the illusion of creating a fair process, I am not claiming it wont be fair, but will all applicants be given a fair chance? [quote="dao, post:1, topic:16764"] A member could be removed by an Internal decision of the Committee members. [/quote] I also wanted to know if there has to be certain circumstances. We see in real life, courtroom judges have their own interpretations of the law that may differ from others - is it possible for the committee to out members because they do not approve of their interpretation of the guidelines? Of course unity is a good option when making decisions as a group, but it isn't always the case.

yes, we need better structure, more investigation and repour before shelling out funds like there is an infinite amount. I couldn't agree more with this !

I am not an attorney, but was a paralegal. I trust you to take care of it effectively. I did briefly review those documents, however I didn't see anywhere that upon taking the grant who has the ability to revoke the grant and under which conditions. Obviously the conditions are implied, but I think starting off we should make lay it out more specifically to the reasons we know and more generic to the things we don't. Personally I would like to make this similar to judges in real life where they aren't creating rules, but instead interpreting the guidelines of the DAO. We are seeing a lot of arbitrary decisions in the wearable curations committee, not to their own fault but due to the way they have to interpret generalized guidelines. A good framework made by the DAO can make this new committee's job very easy if we do it correctly.

Hi @Tudamoon! Thank you for this comment and your suggestion. Definitely, we need to include in the forms to request a grant, the questions “Did you read the Content Policy doc? Did you read the Terms of Use doc? Etc. In fact, it is something that we´ve suggested to the Gov Team to change and we are working on that point. In short, we are on the same page as you. Regarding the “jurisdiction topic” and what you wrote in the document. It is written [in the Docs](https://docs.decentraland.org/player/general/dao/overview/receiving-grants/) that the grant could be revocable, but it wasn´t clear who should do it (jurisdiction). That´s why we started creating this governance process. So, to answer your questions, this new committee will have the jurisdiction to make the final decision, and to be explicit, we will include in the forms to request a grant the question “Did you read the Documentation regarding the Grants?” (btw, I´m a lawyer. Lol)

My only suggestion is that we add upon Grant proposals that the Grantee consents to this under the condition of applying for the Grant. Offer, Acceptance, Consideration currently exists, but currently, there is nothing that gives this committee jurisdiction if the contract is enacted. They give jurisdiction to make a ruling and they certainly could revoke the grant, but in most government courthouses, this leaves room for the Grantee to seek a legal remedy from their own country. This is creating powers for the DAO without explicitly giving the DAO those powers.  There is no mention of by-laws or updated rules created by the DAO. Along with this proposal, this committee must gain jurisdiction in the Grant Contract itself to be valid. Without direct consent of the Grantee in my personal opinion, there is a lack of jurisdiction. My suggestion would be to gain consent from all future grantees upon them applying for a grant. They must consent to any governance changes enacted by the DAO. Any attorneys out there that can help comment on this jurisdictional matter?