As much as I understand the motivation behind this clawback proposal, I believe we might have jumped the gun here. The desire to protect DAO funds and ensure transparency is valid, but immediately resorting to a complete clawback seems overly harsh and potentially counterproductive. Instead, let’s take a moment to reconsider the issue more constructively, with empathy for the challenges the GCP has been facing.
I suggest the following:
Implement Phased Clawbacks Instead of Immediate Full Clawback: Rather than reclaiming all the unallocated funds at once, a phased approach would offer GCP a realistic opportunity to adjust. For example, we could establish clear milestones with incremental clawbacks only if those milestones aren’t met. This provides both accountability and motivation without completely halting their efforts.
Flexible and Realistic Reporting Standards: It’s clear that the reporting requirements have become somewhat burdensome. Let’s simplify and streamline reporting:
- Shift from exhaustive written reports toward shorter, structured updates, perhaps via monthly community calls or concise status updates on Telegram.
- Focus reporting on key performance indicators directly linked to gaming ecosystem growth, such as the number of active game projects onboarded, player engagement metrics, and meaningful ecosystem collaborations.
- Replace rigid quarterly reporting with a flexible framework that allows for more spontaneous, real-time community interaction.
Clear, Supportive, and Collaborative Oversight: Instead of stringent oversight, we should consider assigning a dedicated governance liaison who works collaboratively with the GCP. Their role would not be punitive but supportive, helping the GCP troubleshoot challenges, clarify goals, and adapt their strategy proactively.
Gradual Adjustment of Compensation Packages: Instead of immediately revoking all unvested compensation, introduce performance-based vesting schedules that clearly reward demonstrable progress. This adjustment provides both motivation for contributors and reassurance to governance that funds are used responsibly.
Finally, our goal should be to empower GCP to succeed, not penalize prematurely. A careful revision of this proposal, incorporating phased funding adjustments, streamlined reporting, supportive oversight, and flexible compensation structures, could strike the right balance between accountability and reorganization.