Decentraland DAO Community Pulse: February 2023
Decentraland DAO Community Pulse: February 2023
The Decentraland DAO Community Pulse is a monthly publication written by the DAO Facilitation Team spotlighting community content creators and diving deep into active governance issues
Creator Spotlight: Sandstorm
Welcome to our 5th edition of our Creator Series! Join us as we feature Decentraland DAO grantees: showcasing their journey — from concept inception to making their projects a reality.
This month we are highlighting Decentraland DAO grantees Oscom and Slaterade from the Sandstorm Team, and took a deep look at their current Builder Competitions for DCL Creators Grant. During our discussions, we explored a diverse range of subjects. These included Sandstorm’s focus on education and supporting new builders, tips for aspiring grantees, an overview of their creator contest framework, the various difficulties they faced, and their future project plans. We finished with a discussion around transparency, community engagement, and the fun and benefit of entering their awesome contests.
The DCL DAO grant was our first step towards contributing to the “open metaverse”, a world where artists, creators and tech wizards come together to innovate. Thanks to the grant, we got the chance to dive deeply into Decentraland, meet dozens of amazingly talented people and give the opportunity to new, fresh talent to start their own metaverse journey. Very grateful for the opportunity! — Sandstorm
Through this series, we hope to encourage a more cooperative, supportive, and inclusive community by highlighting the remarkable work carried out by our grantees. All grantees journey are different and we feel that by witnessing their journey it may help inspire and ignite new ways in which you as a community member can contribute. We hope you all take a moment to learn and enjoy the show!
💫 Learn more about Sandstorm’s Grant here
💫 Check out their headquarters in DCL here
Join us to help build the future of Decentraland!
🎬Enjoy this highlight Clip
DAO Committees in Decentraland
The question of Committees is an important one for DAOs. On the one hand, committees are often seen as an aspect of centralization, and friction point for governance efficiency. On the other, DAOs require human inputs to function, and committees can decentralize decision-making from a single to multiple actors. At Decentraland DAO, committees are becoming increasingly important, and over recent months, we have engaged in a series of elections for key committee positions, highlighting need for a formal and broadly applicable process for committee member selection, regardless of what committee the process is for.
A highly centralized process, in which a small group of individuals has complete control over selecting committee members, may raise concerns about bias and lack of diversity. Conversely, a fully decentralized process, where all members have an equal say in selecting committee members, could present challenges in identifying the most qualified and suitable candidates.
This inquiry explores the degrees of centralization or decentralization in the process for selecting committee members in Decentraland DAO. Overall, the aim is for the DAO to develop a process that is efficient, and tailored to the organization’s specific needs, while also maintaining a consensual foundation among all community members and stakeholders. As part of our research and analysis on this topic, we conducted an interview with Gino from the Governance Squad.
Gino: I think that we are seeing some movements towards delegating specific responsibilities to groups of people, and that doesn’t mean that that the process is not decentralized, or at least not because of this mechanism.
Gino’s quote above refers to the role established committees have played throughout the recent committee elections, highlighted by the just concluded election of Tobik to the DAO Committee, and the ongoing process to elect members to the newly established Grants Revocation Committee.
In the write up below, we go into further detail about existing committees and the process used to elect members.
Background
Decentraland DAO currently has three approved committees: The DAO Committee, which was formed with the establishment of the DAO; The Wearables Curation Committee, which was established by a non-binding governance proposal in May 2021; and the Grants Revocation Committee, which was recently established by a binding governance proposal in December 2022. Each committee has its own background and context, however, the one thing they have in common is the need for mechanisms to add and remove members over time.
The DAO Committee
The question of how to add and remove members to committees first arouse surrounding the resignation of Mr. Eric from the DAO Committee. As a founding member of the DAO Committee, and key player in the early period of Decentraland DAO, Eric helped spearhead a proposal to establish a Formal Process for Adding/Removing DAO Committee Members, prior to his resignation. While the proposal formally called for the use of ranked choice voting, it kept a pathway open for alternative voting methods, should this feature not yet be implemented in the governance dApp.
Moving from an open call for applications, through DAO Committee interviews of potential candidates, to the final fielding of five of those applicants for the position, the process to elect a new DAO Committee member stretched over a series of months. The process itself broke temporarily broke down surrounding the use of five separate proposals to gauge support for potential candidates, when it was met with opposition from community members, and opposition to the process gained the backing of several significant whale votes. To move beyond this blocker, a general consensus was reached to resubmit the five candidates as part of a single proposal, and establish a more structured process for candidates and community members to engage with each other leading up to the final selection vote.
The election process resumed with the submission of a Pre-Proposal Poll including all five candidates, but the voting was not extent from controversy. Debate was set in motion following a large “whale” vote in favor of Tobik, since the vote in question came from the Leader of District X, prompting a resurgence of dissent surrounding the status of this district.
Finally, with Tobik receiving the most amount of voting power among the five DAO Committee candidates, and following the agreed process, a subsequent Draft Proposal followed by a Binding Governance Proposal were submitted to affirm his election and initiate his formal appointment to the DAO Committee.
Wearables Committee
The Wearables Curation Committee began as a group of at least 3 individuals tasked with reviewing and approving all submitted wearables, each holding keys to a multisig wallet with permissions within the Wearables Editor to approve or reject the publication of a collection. The committee was designed to ensure wearables meet the minimum technical requirements as well as to prevent spam, abuse, duplicated content, and copyright infringements.
The initial established process for adding/removing members outlined that a committee member can “be removed or added by opening a proposal in the Decentraland DAO” and that “a proposal for the removal of a committee member should include a suggested replacement to ensure that every seat is filled at all times”.
The number of seats on the Curation Committee was subject to growth according to high demand for wearables submission review, leading to an open Call for Nominations for the positions. According to this process outlined in the initial proposal and the Specifications, the DAO Facilitator submitted separated Pre-Proposal Polls for each potential candidate, which were voted on and approved and rejected for a position on the committee.
Revocation Committee
One of the primary objectives of the Grant Support Squad is to signal to the DAO when a vesting contract should be revoked. If a grantee fails to comply with the basic terms and conditions of the Grants program, it’s clearly stated that a grant must be revoked, but it is not specified who should make this decision.
This issue was highlighted during a specific poll about the procedure for revoking grants. The community felt it was necessary to further discuss and decide on who should have the authority to revoke grants. As a result, another poll was submitted, presenting options for the final decision-making process: by community decision; by DAO Committee decision; by a newly created Committee decision; or by a random, rotative, and voluntary jury.
With the majority of voting power (VP) favoring the “New Committee Decides” option, a subsequent Draft Proposal was submitted to establish a framework for creating a dedicated Committee responsible for deciding on grant revocations. Following the Governance Process, a Binding Governance Proposal was submitted to outline the structure and guidelines for the “Accountability Committee,” accompanied by a specification.
After an Open Call, the Grant Support Squad interviewed candidates and selected five members along with two substitutes. Some community members expressed concerns about the approved process, which led to another Pre-Proposal Poll to define a mechanism for electing Grant Revocation Committee Members. The majority of VP supported the option to “Meet and vote for the Candidates.”
As the next step, the DAO Facilitation Squad hosted an open session to introduce the five selected candidates and two substitutes to community members. Following this, the Grant Support Squad will implement a voting procedure similar to the recently completed DAO Committee election process.
Gino: The community has to have the power to revoke members of that Committee for sure. And that’s the beauty of power dynamics, power delegation, and representation on blockchain based organizations. I mean, you can give and you can take away power almost immediately. So if the community decides that a committee is not doing their job, they have the ability to revoke the committee. And that’s why I think revocations are really important for this.
These three prior experiences demonstrated that a consensus has not yet been reached regarding the process for adding or removing members from various Committees. This raises another question: Should the DAO establish a standardized, formal process for adding or removing members from all Committees?
Possible and Existing Approaches
There are two primary processes that are currently being explored, and employed in our recent attempts to add new members to existing committees. In each of these processes, the power to establish a new committee, however, remains within the realm of the binding governance proposal process. What is being explored here, is how new committee members are added once a committee is established, or when a committee is being established and its first cohort selected.
- The first process is what was used in recent election processes — a hybrid process where an established committee is first responsible for selecting candidates from an open call, followed by a broader community vote on candidates vetted for the position. The committee should be transparent in its selection process, with clear criteria for candidate suitability and opportunities for community feedback and input.
- Having a pre-selection process by a committee and then allowing the wider community to vote on the pre-selected candidates could be a compromise between centralization and decentralization. This approach can help ensure that only candidates who meet the necessary criteria are considered for the position, while still giving the wider community a say in the final decision. This approach is also potentially problematic, as it raises questions of centralization within committees, who become responsible for selecting which candidates are viable for future positions.
- The second, is to adopt the formal process for adding/removing DAO Committee members by implementing the Ranked Voting Choice into the dApp, without any preselection vetting or criteria.
Gino: I would say that no feature implementation will solve power dynamics and discussions. I think it’s about community healing and transparency (…). The having of ranked choice voting or wherever way of doing this in the Governance dApp would make it easier, but if the community does not trust the process, even with a feature there, it’ll be a mess as well. So I think it’s all about community building and being transparent.
Additional options that could be considered include:
- Establishment of temporary committees composed of representatives from different stakeholder groups within the DAO that would responsible for selecting candidates. This would specially work when the proposal for creating a new Committee comes from community members form outside the Core Team (existing Committees and Squads).
- Tagging candidates as endorsed or supported by the interviewers when the time for a voting comes, however, allowing all members from the open-call to participate in final election. On the one hand, this will create an opportunity for candidates that weren’t vetted to remain in contention for a position on a specific committee. On the other, this could create a perception of bias or favoritism, which could undermine the legitimacy and transparency of the selection process.
Conclusion
The introduction of new mechanisms and features could help alleviate tension and debate surrounding this topic. However, when designing and deciding on new procedures and mechanisms, it is essential to consider the power dynamics that inevitably influence decision-making, especially when it comes to permanent organizational structures and decisions that directly impact the security of the treasury, where various stakeholder interests converge.
By allowing anyone to nominate themselves as a candidate and proceed directly to a vote, regardless of their background or experience, the DAO can potentially attract a diverse range of candidates with varied perspectives and ideas. However, this approach also raises concerns due to the possibility of attracting numerous unqualified or unsuitable candidates. To mitigate this risk, the DAO could consider maintaining a pre-selection process to ensure the qualifications and experience of candidates are adequately assessed; or do away with this process, and maintain an open and free call for applicants .
Stay Connected with Decentraland DAO!
- Join the Decentraland DAO Discord
- Follow us on Twitter
- Subscribe to our YouTube
- Subscribe to our Weekly Governance Brief
The Decentraland DAO Community Pulse Report was prepared by the DAO Facilitation Team: @Matimio, @Fractilians, @Fehz
