[DAO:49e7288] Should Decentraland Worlds be integrated with Events and Places?

by 0x8ec394bc6a794e7ea0b4fb75b29dd6c563649d4c (Lem)


In order to increase adoption and utility of Decentraland Worlds, and to encourage more content creators to use the platform, we propose integrating Worlds with Events and Places.


Integration with Events

  • Users are currently only able to submit events hosted at a location which is a coordinate in Genesis City. This change would allow users to submit events hosted in a World.
  • When players click “Jump in” on the event card, they would go to the World.
  • These World events would appear in the Events website, and in the Events tab in the client.

Integration with Places

  • Right now, the Places website and the Explore menu in the client only show locations in Genesis City. This change would let these interfaces show Worlds too.
  • Worlds might shown in a different section from Genesis City locations in the user interface, to make it easier to tell them apart.


We believe these changes would make Worlds more useful, and allow more users to discover Worlds. Any questions please comment below.

  • Include Worlds in Places and Events
  • Include Worlds in Places only
  • Include Worlds in Events only
  • Do not include Worlds in Places or Events
  • Invalid question/options

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

1 Like

About the author: I’m Louise McLennan, Product Manager and designer at the Decentraland Foundation.


Nice proposal, thanks!

1 Like

If that passes, it would be nice to include all worlds servers, not just the Foundation’s worlds server.


It is inevitable. Stopping it now means building a wrapper for the events API that includes extra events. It may not be displayed in Genesis Plaza or Decentraland.org to start, but that just means someone else will get the eyeballs when they have a more complete listing of all the events. I understand why land owners in Genesis City may not want this. I too am a land owner. But I am not putting up blinders to what Worlds is enabling builders to do. Recognize that builders are working like crazy in worlds right now, and that we are likely to see a shift to a majority of events taking place in Worlds in the short term.


It still amazes me today, how land owners see DCL WORLDS as a threat. Land/Estates are only valuable if there are enough content built on top it & the platforms as a whole is buzzing with user traffic (engagement, participation, attendance, events, parties, festivals, games etc…) However this is not the case given certain barriers. Number one barrier is Land affordability. Worlds implementation solves this problem in a very unique way. Although the Worlds are seperate entities from Genesis Land switching between them is seamless. Given it’s potential for onboarding new creators, developers & users, The WORLDS full potential must be made available for everyone to use and enjoy.

90K Parcels was never going to be enough lets admit it. Do you think land owners would be happy if DCL decides to release more Genesis Land, expanding the land size to 360K or 1M plots? I bet not. So in other words, these Worlds work and benefit everyone. I am not even saying it should be restricted only to DCL Names, let’s open it up for everyone, all the communities. We want everyone to come in and build their presence inside Decentraland. This is the only way forward IMHO.




Please correct me if I’m wrong. The opposing 4M VP whale vote came from DistrictX leader & I only have one question for Decentraland Community.

What event has DistrictX hosted in the past 3 years? I mean has anyone even heard the word DistrictX lately?

Perhaps something to think about :grinning:

as a land owner I am voting yes. I agree with @MorrisMustang it is inevitable

I actually like this idea, but I think there needs to be an official talk with land owners or districts leaders first. There needs to be some solution with districts leaders or land owners or they will keep getting mad and dissatisfied. This is what they are afraid of. There needs to be an equilibrium. However I see the value that this brings to the platform. Voting no for now, just to bring awareness that there needs to be some communication or I am just afraid there might be more uproar again.

I love the innovation that’s happening in DCL, however we just need to figure the communication part out.:heart:

Abstain my vote.

As a player, an active builder and an experienced event organizer, I totally understand the importance of this proposal, and in long term, I think this is inevitable and meaningful in a good way.

However, I also understand the importance to make early investors happy, we can see the floor price of land is keep dropping, I know it’s not a disaster yet, (it might not even be one) but it’s alarming. I am referring to all land investors, not to any specific person. We cannot just tell them, “hey, this is what’s gonna happen with the World Feature, it’s all gonna be okay and better, just take it!!!” Imagine If you hold a lot of land, will you be persuaded by that? Instead, we should let early land investors know “Hey, we gonna do this, and meanwhile, we got sth prepared for you early land investors, and you will be able to stake your land to get MANA now!!!” (this is just an example, there are many ways to benefit land owners if we really want to, and to make it easier to accept this proposal)

And tbh, this is a part I sense a huge lack in the whole development of Decentraland, focusing too much on technology and ideology compared to other stuff like marketing, partnership, Defi etc. DCL is a metaverse project, but meanwhile, it’s a web3 business, please raise some attention to this issue.

These are some words from a guy who truly wants DCL to be the forever king in the web3 metaverse.

You said what a lot of us are thinking really well.

I get that DCL Worlds are going to bring a lot of innovation and creation to DCL, and I’m all for that. But damn… the entire concept that I loved about Decentraland was that there was a finite number of parcels to be built on. Through the whole introduction of DCL Worlds to our ecosystem, there hasn’t been a lot of communication for land owners. Maybe in time giving Worlds the same exposure that Land parcels get is a good idea, but let’s slow down. We just lost a very unique property that made DCL unique (Scarcity of land)… there’s no reason to rush into handing DCL Worlds every opportunity that Land owners have. I’ve already started selling my DCL land because of DCL Worlds, and I know other land owners have too. Instead of pushing Land owners away, we need to work together to find solutions that will best serve the needs of all parties involved.

Let’s just slow down a little! I believe we can find other ways to support DCL Worlds without continuing to compromise the very foundation on which DCL was formed. :pensive:


I personally would love to see this ! At first I wasn’t really fond of the concept of DCL worlds, because of the belief it would decrease the value of land. It took some time for me to be open of the idea to worlds and what it has to offer. I do have plans to use DCL world to its max capacity. After using a 1x1 for a few years now, I have reached limitations. DCL worlds allows creators explore more possibilities. This only means more room for growth and innovation.
I do understand where others are coming from, as far as the land value. I also hope we can find ways to make both sides happy and also acknowledged, so that land owners can have their voices heard and it doesn’t effect their investments. There needs to be better communication.

…If this passes, will be using this feature. I am looking forward to seeing what is to come, and this will certainly open the doors for more creators to know what else is possible for them. What drew me into Decentraland, and i am sure most of us was seeing all the possibilities at once.
Worlds brings things up a notch. It will certainly open up the gates for everyone.

1 Like

I am personally voting no as well, not because i dislike the idea, but because there’s been no proper communication about these rollouts from the beginning. As a land owner, this is what my thought process has been from the beginning till now.

Introduction of DCL Worlds but limited to 100mb, 100pax and 4 parcels.
Hmm, ok huge capacity in terms of amount of content that can be made available, but limited by parcel size, sounds reasonable since the proposition is to have a half step to allow creators to experiment at low cost before commiting to purchasing/renting in Genesis City.

Removal of parcel limit
:thinking: Essentially makes any parcel/estate size under 7(105mb) worth less considering now there’s no space restriction vs having one in Genesis City.

Integrating Events and Places
Now these seem like baby steps in transferring Land benefits to Worlds

What next?
Remove 100 pax capacity?

These, IMO, would be akin to saying to Names owners, look, lets introduce Worlds 2.0 but this time, we can create an inifinite amount of the same name, at zero cost.

The uniqueness of Land is in its scarcity, as is with Names. Take that away and it becomes essentially worthless to invest in Lands OR Names.

A kick to the guts no less.

Voting Include to offset RobL’s vote


Id like to see DCL has this feature as well, for the record, I don’t have a lot of land… Just saying there might be a better way to deal with the transition period and for the benefits of whole DCL system

1 Like

Yes, it would be nice ! i don’t either. I m pushing a 1x1 till its limits. and theres some shortcomings. DCL worlds will allow more space for a variety of different concepts, ideas, projects to explore all in one link. Im also thinking about the average person who cant afford to buy land and wish to create. We are limiting someones dreams and potential and i wouldn’t want to see that. And yes the transition is something we would all have to get accustomed to. Either way, i support whatever the community is looking for. :thought_balloon:

1 Like

would you like the complete list of 6 events DistrictX has held since the grand opening of DCL?

there are pros and cons.
pros is to bring more people who don’t have lands into dcl and make it more active.

but the thing is we gotta take care of the unique benefit for land owners.

for example, limit the world size to 1x1 or give stake options for lands. We gotta give relatively different to land owners.

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:

  1. 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?

  2. How long will it be before the 100MB content limit is removed?

  3. How else will these free worlds be integrated to the detriment of LAND owners?

  4. 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.

  1. More functionality could be added to the Rental marketplace.
  2. More advertising done to promote the affordable rental options available
  3. 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.

1 Like

Once you guys are done reading Rob’s self interested essay, perhaps read about how he came to have so much VP