[DAO:2d883cd] Should POI names be assigned in the POI proposal or should we continue to let land owners change their POI at will?

by 0xc375b0a133f49dbf3c6418895d6d024be2d8f84a (noh0mie)

Currently the POI proposal process only asks for three data fields when applying:

  1. The land location coordinates of the proposed POI
  2. A brief description of why you think your land should be approved as a POI
  3. Any co-author wallet addresses

With this current structure players are not required to assign a name to their POI at the time of applying. While many proposals do mention the intended name of their POI, others do not and this creates confusion as well as potential for abuse in the following situations:

  1. Confusion - Voting players are not always clear on what the intended POI name is being there is no name data field. Land owners who want to share with the community their intended name can only include this in the description.
  2. Confusion - The proposed POI name in the proposal description can be different than the existing land name when players visit in world to review the POI. Players are not required to have their land name set to the proposed POI name.
  3. Abuse - Players could apply for a POI under one name and following approval change it to something different than the proposed name. This can be used to mislead voting players into approving a POI name they do not support or find offensive.

While currently we do have a check and balance to this with the ability to vote to remove a POI if an owner we’re to act maliciously, I’m not sure this is the best system. Due to this I would like to hear the community opinion on adding an name field to the POI proposal.

The way I would see this functioning is the ability for an owner to submit a name change in the land manager would be locked if it is currently active as a POI. Land owners who do not have an active POI will continue to be able to change their land name freely.

I would also like to note I’m aware it may not be possible to make this change with the way the contract function for changing the plot name / description is set up being you must sign a tx to make this change. I imagine this could be at the least hidden on the front end similar to how the ability to list items below 1 mana was on polygon for sometime, but players would still be able to call the contract function with some technical know-how. For this to work fully however calling of that function would have to be blocked to active POI owners. If someone with more knowledge of the DCL land contract and how the front end interacts with it could offer some clarity it would be appreciated.

Please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below, I look forward to the discussion and others opinions on the matter.

  • Make no changes to the POI name system
  • POI names should be assigned in the proposal, owners must reapply to change name
  • Invalid question/options

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

Doesn’t it source the name from the land itself?

Just posted one myself, and yes it does source from the land and what it’s named.

I’m not sure if changing the way POI names are set to a more restrictive system is the best way to go tbh.
Currently it sources it from the name of the scene that is deployed on the land like ck already mentioned. There are many valid use cases why an owner/operator might want to change that name after applying for a POI.
In our case for example, it used to be “TRU Band Room” which currently is changed to “TRU x Energy”, because of the collaboration we have running. Once that is over, it will be changed again. There are many more cases I can think of that imho should be allowed without having to go through a proposal or a similar process again. For example if Roustan wanted to change the name of his Cove to Roustan Haunted Cove during halloween.

A POI should indicate that there actually is something of interest going on. As long as that is true (which unfortunately it isn’t, but that is a different topic…), I don’t really mind what it is called. Unless it is something offensive/abusive or maybe if a completely different build is deployed by a completely new owner/project, in which case the POI removal process can be used.

I see the potential for abuse in the current system, but I don’t see much abuse happening atm and the tools to deal with those cases are already there. But then again, I’m an optimist and believe most people are acting with good intentions…

1 Like

Thank you for your points, I agree there are pros and cons to both sides and keeping things as is benefits most people. I realised now as well the name in the image on the proposal page includes whatever the current plot name is, but in the many times I’ve voted on POI proposals I never noticed this. Maybe the solution is much more simple and is just labeling this field more clearly as the plot title to alleviate confusion on the proposal page? This could also be an improvement to the directory page as when searching through POI proposals the only thing to identify them before clicking into the page is the plot coordinates.

For example, the title “Add the location -103,-144 to the Points of Interest” is ambiguous however if it was “Add Vroomway at -103,-144 to the Points of Interest” you would be able to identify the POI proposals in the directory prior to opening the individual proposal page.

On this one I totally agree. Would def make it easier to identify what should be added.

This is actually a very good proposal, and is what I was trying to explain as part of the problem with the current POI system in @Canessa & @SinfulMeatStick’s last Twitter space.

@ckbubbles; POIs are actually scene specific, which basically means whenever we vote on a POI, under the current model, we’re approving a parcel of land to be a point of interest; irrespective of what happens to the estate/scene in the future. The name of that scene’s POI is pulled from the property’s scene.json file, which can be changed on the fly.

This means that a user can effectively means that POIs can be actively changed by land owners/operators, irrespective of what the original POI vote entailed.

As a community, we would have voted for POI X, but it effectively can be swapped to POI Y with a simple scene change.

The current system is broken, and reform is totally worth considering.

Should POI names be assigned in the POI proposal or should we continue to let land owners change their POI at will?

This proposal is now in status: FINISHED.

Voting Results:

  • Make no changes to the poi name system 100% 914,904 VP (50 votes)
  • Poi names should be assigned in the proposal, owners must reapply to change name 0% 0 VP (0 votes)
  • Invalid question/options 0% 0 VP (0 votes)

Should POI names be assigned in the POI proposal or should we continue to let land owners change their POI at will?

This proposal has been REJECTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xfe91c0c482e09600f2d1dbca10fd705bc6de60bc)