The Foundation’s launch of DCL Worlds, while necessary, has caused some discomfort within the community - specifically for land owners. The Chief Land Officer would work with all community members to address the “barrier-to-entry problem” long-term, in a way that takes into account the interests of all stakeholders.
Please review and feel free to comment. You can also message my discord: wdbjr#6271
It kind of floors me that the entire concept of DCL Worlds was casually introduced to the Decentraland ecosystem without much explanation or information offered from the foundation. In my mind, the integrity of our land contracts and a scarcity of 90,000 parcels is our “castle” of which we protect, build on, and preserve at all costs. Any new threat to the integrity of these 90,000 parcels should have been handled with white gloves, carefully considered, and then COMMUNICATED to the community in a more clear and concise manner. I have fielded a lot of questions around this matter that as a simple community member, I cannot answer.
I understand the positive aspects of DCL Worlds, and I am not opposed to them. DCL Worlds will bring incredible value to Decentraland. It’s not a matter of DCL Worlds being good or bad. But how we interact with any new component to our ecosystem is vital to the long term health of Decentraland. If we have a qualified person who can help communicate the wants and needs of both sides, it would alleviate a lot of stress from the land owners who took a HUGE gamble for buying digital land when there was no proof of concept. The land owners I’ve spoken to feel betrayed and some are putting their land up for sale because of this. Clear communication is never a bad business decision, and it is something I hope the foundation embraces as new dynamics of Decentraland continue to change and evolve in the future.
Thanks for the helpful feedback Canessa. I agree with you and what you have laid out is the genesis of this proposal. I have update the link (hopefully it works this time).
I’ve updated the position name to “Land Fiduciary Position” to clarify that the position is not a position of power, just a point person to act and provide ideas / evaluate proposals with a fiduciary duty to land owners. I also intentionally chose “Community Feedback” for the poll as I did not want to submit for a vote yay/nay vote yet. I will submit later this week once I’ve made a few tweaks based on additional feedback.
While I think this topic should be discussed, I’m voting invalid option because there’s two options for voting community feedback, and this is confusing and also splitting the vote. Maybe this can become a working group, and the community and land owners, and DAO member can all discuss it together and see what a resolution could be, if there should need to be one?