Limit Fund Appropriation to Grant Proposals This proposal is now in status: PASSED. Voting Results: * Yes 97% 2,574,353 VP (63 votes) * No 3% 82,155 VP (2 votes)

[quote="esteban, post:2, topic:15649"] The binding governance proposals require more (or the same) voting power than the grants. [/quote] Currently, binding governance proposals needs 6M VP while 240k USD grants require 8M VP. I think it's good to prevent grants through binding proposals, but we need clear rules on how funds can be used through binding proposals. How do you differentiate 50k going to Blender versus 50k going to DG. Some initiatives might require funding from the DAO quicker than a grants (within a couple weeks rather than 6 months through grants). Fundings like the one DG got should not happens anymore IMO, but it's hard to put a clear and hard limit on what should and should not be allowed.

Thank you @Matimio for raising this concern! I think the DG vote was a complicated issue. I have the upmost respect for the team, but I also think the use of the funds was sub-optimal. On the other hand, I was in full agreement with the Blender support initiative -- I don't think the creators use any other 3D CAD software to build wearables for our platform... I think this restriction is unnecessary, so I voted no on it. The binding governance proposals require more (or the same) voting power than the grants. I do believe we need to act to continuously adapt to the circumstances as our DAO evolves, including: - Seriously analyzing some sort of quadratic voting mechanism (which requires something like Proof of Humanity or the privacy-respecting [HumanBound](https://humanbound.xyz/) tokens) - Increase the required VP to approve grants and/or governance proposals - Mechanisms to prevent corruptions and bribes in the different squads/working groups (unfortunately I don't have ideas for how to do this!) Even though I'm against this proposal, I completely support the decision if it passes. Thank you again for such a well written exposition of the case!