@web3nit why even make this prop? What possible benefit would this have. Another attempt at power consolidation 
Voting no, I donāt think VP for land, names or MANA should change.
well said thanks for the input 
The circulating supply (tradeable by the public) of MANA is 1,842,065,057 out of a potential whole supply 2,193,179,327, which is potential voting power .
Decentraland has only 90,601 parcels, each with 2,000 VP, amounting to 181,202,000 million VP.
Even if this were doubled to 362,404,000 VP, it would still be far less than the MANA supply of 2,193,179,327, which represents the potential VP that could enter Decentraland.
And also the total amount of parcels available for voting is less than 90k, u have to deduct Foundation plaza and road parcels too.
most mana holders are purely speculative and have no idea what the dao is. This is a false equivalency and totally irrelevant imo
1 Like
According to the transparency spreadsheet, all members that voted at least once in the DAO currently owns:
- 30M VP from LANDs
- 33M VP from MANA
- ~13M VP from Estebanās delegations (he never voted with the delegating addresses so it shows up as delegated VP)
- 1.5M VP from Names
- 0.65M VP from L1 Wearables
- (19M VP (32-13) from delegation, but that can include duplicate from the above)
And that includes an address with 11M VP from MANA that only voted 6 times in 2021 and another address with 6M VP from MANA that only voted twice in beginning of 2022.
Taking those into account we are currently at 27M VP from MANA against 30M VP from LANDsā¦
(33M VP from MANA, minus 11M and 6M from two addresses that voted only a few times over a year and half ago, plus 13M from Esteban, delegated from addresses that never voted so donāt show up in the MANA VP list)
Doubling the VP from LANDs would give a clear advantage to LANDs owners.
Doubling the LANDs VP value would give a very clear advantage to LANDs owners over the whole DAO.
1 Like
You missed the point. I am talking about the whole picture, not short term.
This is a short term disaster for the DAO. It will allow a handful of actors, which have in the past acted many times very badly, absolute full control over the DAO, which will let them to pass a proposal to again double or quadruple the VP value of LANDs if they wishes so.
1 Like
After hearing more input, I changed my vote to NO.
While I want to give more power to land owners than mana hodlers, itās apparent we have work to do before we are healthy enough to make infrastructural changes to the DAO. 
1 Like
I am compelled to change my vote to invalid in light of the stats HP presented via the transparency dashboard, which Iāve personally checked. Thereās a balance of VP from both MANA and LAND voters rn and to tip the balance will bring more chaos than good.
FYI most of my VP comes from LAND so yes I am voting against my interest. My ultimate goal is the betterment of the DAO and DCL
It seems to me that we donāt want people to sell Land for Mana, or vise versa, just in order to improve their voting power. Mana and Land are both important, but Land should be about development, Mana about financial transactions, currency.
I agree with Jamesās idea that if were were to change it, it should be a dynamic model, based on the market value of land (floor, or average, or something).
Our current 2000 VP per land is a bit below the floor. I would be comfortable with it rising some, but for now Iām also very fine with leaving it alone.
There is an argument to be made that there may already be some market forces for exhanging land for Mana to get more voting power, and hence this 2000 ratio might be holding land value near 2000. That is an argument for raising it, but again I think it should probably be neutral, which could best be achieved by a dynamic ratio.
Someone might convince me that neutral isnāt ideal. (e.g. that if we make Land somewhat higher, it would help raise the value of Land), but then again, i wouldnāt be happy to see Land being bought for voting, not for development.
For now Iām voting no.
- 30M VP from LANDs
- 33M VP from MANA
- ~13M VP from Estebanās delegations (he never voted with the delegating addresses so it shows up as delegated VP)
- 1.5M VP from Names
- 0.65M VP from L1 Wearables
Now looking at this, I am leaning more towards increasing the Name & L1 Wearables VP. We have around 40K Names & 74K L1ās. Lands are 90K and they receive 30M VP, the ratio comparison of L1ās are less than 5% and less than 3% for names. I believe they both should & can be increased.
Dynamic model sounds like a terrible option. VP were never meant to be tied to the value of Lands. Same goes for Names & L1ās.
L1 were never meant to have VP in the first place.
Names are getting their value in MANA, which is fair, you spend 100 MANA and you get 100 VP. If Names price were to change to be dynamic I would be in favor of changing the VP for Names, but right now it would not make sense IMO.
Many have minted names when mana was $5 how do we offset that?
Well L1ās do have attached/assigned VP now & there is no going back. If the Land VP were to be adjusted (increased) I feel L1ās also deserve a shot. We can not compare those who have skin in the game with those who have Delegated VPās. In other words this is like telling all the early believers who bought into the promise/dream via ICO or Opensea Presale that they are less worthy because they donāt own Land.
It was 100 MANA, the MANA price doesnāt change that, we donāt need to offset it in any way.
Itās the same as buying 100 MANA when MANA was at 5 USD and keeping it for VP since then.
I only mention this because looking at the snapshot figures you posted, the VP distribution ratio between Land, Names & L1ās differ substantially. It is understandable that Land may be given priority when it comes to VP however the other two assets only account for %3-%5 of whatās been given to Landās even in itās current form.
Very good points. Thank you for your feedback. Holding LAND could offer additional rewards to compensate for the increased risks involved.
I agree LAND VP should be revised so I originally had voted in favor of this.
Thereās so much effort being made to combat ābad actorsā with high amounts of VP that the DAO seems stuck in fighting these people rather than working on what we can actually control. I see no positive progress happening so far. How many proposals are we going vote for because we are to offset a particular personās vote? I fail to see how this is productive as we stay in the same place going forward.
Changed my vote to invalid question/options for now.
Unfortunately we still have the issue of Districts (namely District X) often ruling or centralizing the votes - given the shady history of this district, appointing them even more power seems like a step towards further centralization and control by an entity that does not have Decentralandās best interests in mind.
Voting NO, although I would revisit this if District VP was handled separately.
People should stop claiming that districts are dangerous and that they abuse their voting power.
Managers of various large districts have commented above that they will abstain from voting Yes on this out of a sense of fairness. Together these large district votes could easily pass this proposal, no problem. Just because one district has a checkered voting past, please donāt generalize this to all of us.
I agree with the earlier idea that Land VP could be adjusted, maybe on an annual basis, to match the average cost of a Land parcel. It could also be increased somewhat without causing problems because I believe that district votes are usually well thought-out and handled responsibly.
Demonizing land owners doesnāt help. Ever since Worlds tanked the land market, landowners have been less involved in DCL and this could account for some of the decline in playership. Anything that makes Land more valuable and more interesting to people in the long run would be a good thing for the whole platform.
4 Likes