Voted ‘No’ for the following reasons:
Decentraland was created under the premise it offered finite LAND that would never increase.
DCL Worlds was implemented by the foundation, without any input by the Land holders or community in December. It began with a 4-parcel limit, which I thought might be beneficial as it offered users a sort of try before you buy/rent or sort of a free sample. Builders could use this “free” 4 parcels to try out their ideas at no cost, use the space as a test bed, or use it to collaboratively build out a scene for a client, etc. Once these developers outgrew this space then they then naturally move to buying or renting space in the DCL main realm. So at the time, while surprised by the lack of communication, I though offering a 4-parcel area did not seem to threaten the rest of the land sales/rental market.
In January, less than a month after the introduction of DCL Worlds, there was another announcement that DCL Worlds will now offer unlimited land, but with a 100MB restriction on content. This decision was again implemented without any input by the Land holders or community members.
So, it was at this time, I think many major land owners saw the handwriting on the wall, that DCL Worlds were now going to be in direct competition with the Land/Rental markets, offering a very similar experience at zero cost.
At the time many Land holders voiced several concerns:
-
If the Decentraland Foundation, an organization for which we all believed had similiarly aligned interests, can create and implement DCL Worlds, in direct competition to an already battered Land and Rental market, without any Land or community input, what can we expect going forward?
-
How long will it be before the 100MB content limit is removed?
-
How else will these free worlds be integrated to the detriment of LAND owners?
-
Where are the counterbalances to offset these effects?
So now it has been only several weeks after DCL Worlds Infinite has been created, and now there is a proposal to link DCL Worlds with Events and Places.
The idea of DCL Worlds concept is nothing more than a scaling solution. However, Decentraland has 90k parcels of land, of which only a portion is actively being used. Why have scaling solutions been implemented when they aren’t yet needed?
It’s as if Decentraland was a 90k unit office building with 20% utilization rate, and has now rushed out and purchased what is essentially an infinite 90k unit office buildings. Why?
It would seem the rationale being used to defend this action is that land prices are too high and create too much of a barrier for entry.
In my opinion, this might be a justifiable reason if, land prices were as high as they were last year ($12-20k, but they are not, they are approx. 80% deflated from those high and many land can be purchased today in the $1500-$1800 range.
Also, there is another very affordable option, for which the mechanism has already been created and deployed. That is the RENTAL market, where in many cases land could be rented for as little as $1 per day.
So, if lowering the barrier of entry was the primary driver of this effort, than there are other ways that this could have been done without diluting LAND assets and tanking the sales and rental markets.
- More functionality could be added to the Rental marketplace.
- More advertising done to promote the affordable rental options available
- Connect with Land owners to see who is willing to Donate (or offer a substantially reduced rent), on a temporary basis, Land to those that have very promising ideas that could bring more users to Decentraland. I know I have often offered Land in District X this way many times. The idea is to reduce the startup costs for those with great ideas, and then when that project becomes profitable, then the rental contract can transition from free/reduced to fair market value.
I know Bill has floated the idea in his other proposal, to require a DCL World Operator to have operator rights of an actual parcel (own or rent); 1 land owned or rented permits them access to operate one DCL World, and users are transported there by a portal on the rented or owed land. This is but one way in which DCL Worlds could exist while still supporting and driving traffic to owned land.
In my opinion, DCL Worlds should be shut down, or at least reverted to 4-parcel space only, until such a time a solution is created to counteract the negative effects DCL Worlds will have on the Land sales and rental markets.
The idea of DCL Worlds, while appealing to some (those mostly without land), it is a torpedo for those with vested interest in Land, as its dilutionary effects are evident to everyone.
@esteban – Let’s be honest, your statement that you are only voting to offset my vote is merely an excuse, as you have voted in the past and have decided the outcome on many proposals, using your 4.4mil VP on many proposals, many of which I have not voted on, and others you have voted with me. Also, should your statement contain any truth to it at all, you are in effect attempting to silence the vote of all Districts (both large and small), which are themselves one of the largest Land holders in DCL as well as other like-minded Land holders. So, the fact the a DCL Founder is actively supporting attempts
to infinitely dilute its primary digital assets, that it initially sold as finite, without any attempt at counterbalancing its inevitable negative effects, is bit disappointing to say the least.
Essentially makes any parcel/estate size under 7(105mb) worth less considering now there’s no space restriction vs having one in Genesis City.