We support this proposal. We believe this change will make grant oversight more effective and streamline the grant review process.
This is in response to feedback from a large number of top delegates, who have expressed they have no special expertise or time to handle grant misuse allegations.
am fine with this, but the council needs to do its job
Although we agree mostly with the changes of this proposal, we are concerned with removing entirely the power of grant freezes from the token house, or any body accountable to the token house. The token house is ultimately responsible for these governance funds, and should be able to vote to bar people from those funds, even if only in the most extreme cases.
As part of the Code of Conduct Council, it's best to abstain from this vote.
A move in the right direction, this will also increase confidence in grant usages.
We support the proposed reclassification of grant misuse enforcement and the introduction of the Grant Misuse Reporting Process. This change effectively shifts the responsibility of enforcement to the specialized Token House Code of Conduct Council, aligning with delegate feedback to avoid involvement in enforcement actions. The new process emphasizes accountability and transparency, ensuring grant misuse is handled objectively and efficiently. By introducing a public database for recording violations and categorizing misuse by severity, the proposal enhances informed decision-making for future grants.
Less desintermediation is best for this kind of process in order to reduce delegate risk management burden and vote apathy