2 years is alot for the space, the space move faster than the real world, 3-6 months should be enough to see if a council member is doing their job and if their actually contributing something or just riding their horses.

Should DAO Council members have term limits ? This proposal is now in status: FINISHED. Voting Results: * 1. yes — 2 year terms, maximum 2 terms in a row, then a 2-year break 42% 1,056,386 VP (7 votes) * 2. yes — but i prefer different term limits(comment) 11% 277,368 VP (3 votes) * 3. no — dao council members should not have term limits 1% 44,951 VP (2 votes) * 4. abstain / i need more information 46% 1,083,993 VP (3 votes) * Invalid question/options 0% 0 VP (0 votes)

While I believe this is a fair and important proposal, I would like to provide some context based on the challenges the DAO Council has faced since its formation. Following the Council selection vote, it took approximately two to three months for members to work through disagreements over processes, and internal conflict before we became fully aligned and able to operate effectively as a single body. Disagreements involving the DAO Committee’s processes also contributed to Maraoz’s resignation, which required another selection process before Mono joined the Council. This experience demonstrated that forming a functional Council involves more than electing five individuals; it takes time to establish trust, working relationships, internal procedures, and a shared understanding of responsibilities. The Council also operated for approximately seven months without receiving compensation because it did not have access to the funds intended for Council payments following the DAO Committee’s refusal to transfer the relevant keys. Despite this, members continued contributing, held meetings monthly instead of the quarterly minimum required by the Charter, and continued contributing to the broader ecosystem. Although the access issue remains unresolved, the Council established a successful alternative payment process through the work of Agus and Mono. Gino from Regenesis Labs also volunteered to assist in the interim, but the Council declined that kind offer as a matter of principle because Regenesis Labs should not be expected to cover the Council’s obligations. The current Council also represents a distinctive combination of experience, access, technical knowledge, and community exposure: * **Agus** is a former Foundation executive who understands its internal context and maintains direct communication with Foundation members and executives. * **Fehz** is a former Decentraland DAO governance contributor with experience in Decentraland’s governance processes and knowledge of how other DAO ecosystems operate. * **Mono** provides the Council with essential technical expertise, including the ability to assess technical proposals and implementations. His work was also instrumental in establishing an alternative solution for Council payments. * **Canessa** is highly active in-world and maintains direct exposure to creators and community members. Her participation allows her to bring ground-level feedback into Council discussions and helps ensure that proposed initiatives reflect what is actually happening within Decentraland. * **MetaRyuk:** I see my contribution as providing a critical and objective assessment of proposed initiatives while remaining directly involved in community activities, scene deployments, testing, and constructive feedback. Drawing on my professional experience as a researcher and analyst, I also share assessments of the Web3 metaverse sector, the factors behind the failure of other ecosystems, and potential implications for Decentraland with the Council, Regenesis Labs, and Esteban from the Foundation. We should be practical about Decentraland’s current position. Its long-term survival requires commitment and cooperation between the Foundation and the DAO, supported by Council members who understand the ecosystem and can maintain those relationships. Yemel’s resignation affected communication between the Council and the Foundation, and efforts are underway to establish an effective working relationship with the interim director. At the same time, Esteban has become increasingly open to engaging with both the Council and the community, including discussions about Decentraland’s sustainability following the closure of other NFT-based metaverse platforms. For these reasons, I **support defined terms and periodic re-election, but I do not support having every Council member’s term expire simultaneously or requiring capable members to leave solely because they have completed a fixed number of terms**. Elections should provide accountability and allow the community to reconfirm, or withdraw, each member’s mandate. They should not unnecessarily remove institutional knowledge or disrupt a Council that is functioning effectively. Council terms should therefore be staggered so that only one seat, or a limited number of seats, comes up for election at a time. Existing members should be permitted to seek re-election, subject to the community’s approval. This would create regular accountability and opportunities for new candidates while ensuring continuity, proper handovers, and knowledge transfer. It would also reduce the risk of an entirely new Council having to rebuild working relationships, operational knowledge, access arrangements, and internal processes from the beginning. In summary: **yes to defined terms, yes to mandatory periodic re-election, yes to staggered election cycles, and yes to allowing existing Council members to stand for re-election. No to replacing the entire Council at once, and no to forcing a Council member to take a mandatory two-year break if they continue to perform well and receive the community’s support for re-election.**

I voted YES. Council positions should have defined terms, and two years seems reasonable. But I disagree with the mandatory two-year hiatus. If someone is performing well and still has the community's confidence, they should be able to continue. I'd prefer 2- or 3-year renewable terms with mandatory reconfirmation instead. The bigger issue here is accountability. Too much in this DAO is indefinite by default: positions without terms, responsibilities without deadlines, projects without completion dates. ReGenesis made substantial changes, but the fundamental questions remain unresolved — who is responsible for what, how performance is measured, when a mandate expires, and when the community gets to reconsider it. People say, "If "YOU" feel a Council Member should be removed, just submit a removal proposal." Technically true. Practically, it doesn't work. Just to submit a binding governance proposal you need 1,000 VP — a bar that already excludes many active community members. Then it has to clear a 6 million VP acceptance threshold to pass. The 2030 Transition Plan proved how unrealistic that is: 51 people voted YES, one abstained, and not a single person voted NO — and it still failed to meet the threshold. When near-unanimous community support can't pass a proposal, expecting that same community to remove someone from power is not a real accountability mechanism. Renewable terms reverse that burden. Every two or three years, the person holding authority comes back to the DAO for an affirmative mandate. Perform well, get reconfirmed. That's not punishment — it's accountability. So: YES on the poll, but the draft proposal should drop the mandatory hiatus in favor of renewable terms with reconfirmation. And more broadly, the DAO should adopt a simple principle: authority has a defined mandate, commitments have deadlines, performance is reviewable, and nothing involving power is indefinite by default.

Thanks for your comments. I agree that staggered terms are worth considering so the Council does not lose all its experience at once. I understand the argument for unlimited renewals, but I still think two consecutive terms followed by a required break is a reasonable safeguard against the same people holding power indefinitely. They could run again after the break. Since this is a poll, it can be a starting point. **If the community prefers unlimited renewals, that can be considered in the next stage.**

I agree with ile on this. DAO Council members should be allowed to renew their terms indefinitely by way of voting. This also ensures that each individual's mandate is strong.

I think term limits makes total sense. Not sure what the time limit should be, but I don't think the entire council's terms should expire at the same time. Stagger elections/terms for each member by 6 months or so, so veteren members can onboard the new member and pass on procedures/knowledge. Also, if this does pass, I think members should be able to run again for the same position indefinitely. There are so few users in decentraland, and only a portion of those users are involved in the DAO. Of those involved, only a fraction of those ppl are qualified, committed, and motivated enough for the position. If someone did a good job, allow them to continue their work.

Thank you for bringing up the topic to the forum, you bring up a valid argument! :slight_smile:

The DAO Committee and Council are structured differently, **but the Council still has significant influence over the DAO’s future through its oversight of the Executive Arm and its approval of the annual strategy, budget, and Treasury Management Strategy.** The end of Regenesis Labs’ mandate may be a good opportunity for review, but it doesn’t create a regular review of each Council member. I think this proposal is the middle ground: two-year terms, up to two consecutive terms, so members can serve for four years while the community gets a regular chance to decide whether to renew their mandate. I value your opinion and appreciate the time you took to share it. I understand that we may have different views.

and when I say silent, I mean "in the back of our mind, if we see theres no movement after X years, lets talk". Hence, why I am hesitant to define the exact term.

Yeah but the DAO committee and the Council were set up completely different. Not every Council member has access to funds, each hold different responsibilities. Its much "easier" to quit the Council than how the DAO committee is set up. The 18 month mandate for Regenesis labs is coming up, and once that is done, the community has a perfect opportunity to assess the Council/Regenesis labs and raise concerns. I think having a silent term expectation is needed. Theres middleground... not too short (one year) but not like a 5-10 term either. (unless the council member proves to be a critical part of the DAO). If things become obviously stagnant, I am sure it will be seen and noticed.

[quote="maryana, post:2, topic:25346"] Each member currently hold years of knowledge about Decentraland, the community, governance, treasury management, and operations. [/quote] I agree that experience is very important. That’s why Council members could still serve for up to four years in a row under this proposal.

[quote="maryana, post:2, topic:25346"] If the community has concerns about a Council member’s performance, make a forum post and hold them accountable. That’s a better system than forcing someone out because a term expired. [/quote] Let’s be realistic, few people will publicly challenge a Council member, especially when personal relationships and possible backlash are involved. Accountability shouldnt depend on someone being willing to take that risk.

[quote="maryana, post:2, topic:25346"] I think rotating Council members just for the sake of turnover or to give others participation trophies creates more risk than reward. [/quote] Hi Maryana thanks for comment. As the history of the DAO Committee shows, this isn’t always the case. 

**8/8: To clarify, I dont believe in "unlimited" power, but I can't say what would be a good term limit. I'll just say 4 years limit, but the community/council member has to re-certify their position every 2 years.** I don't think the Council should have term limits. Each member currently hold years of knowledge about Decentraland, the community, governance, treasury management, and operations. They also review the yearly budget, communicate with Regenesis Labs monthly, and hold multisig access. From the forum to Town Halls, it's clear they've each contributed and made themselves available for community discussion and feedback. If the community has concerns about a Council member's performance, make a forum post and hold them accountable. That's a better system than forcing someone out because a term expired. I also think it's the responsibility of each Council member to step down when they feel they are no longer contributing, know someone more qualified, or can no longer dedicate the time. I think rotating Council members just for the sake of turnover or to give others participation trophies creates more risk than reward.