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

GenesisCity LANDs supply hasn’t increased.
Worlds could have been created by anyone, it’s not something that only the Foundation could have done

Funny to hear when you voted on over 50% of proposals over the last month and Esteban voted on 15%, we see who is deciding the outcome on many proposals…


Definite ‘YES’ from me. DCL being finite is a good idea when LAND owners are building and developing. But what seems to have happened is large Land owners and Districts have sat on land for 5yrs, waiting for the work of the average individual to increase the overall prices of their holdings. To @RobL’s comment about how this would make sense if LAND prices were still higher - the LAND prices are still inflated and this is a massive barrier to entry for the people that actually want to contribute and help develop.

If the large Land owners and District Leaders had spent the last 5 years building, and helping grow the community, then we wouldn’t be in this position. Instead, you all left the community with no choice other than to create a place where the people focused on actually being a part of this community can get involved.

1 Like

@HPrivakos You may be correct in that DCL Worlds could have been created by anyone, however it wasn’t, and since it is being introduced by Decentraland, and since it will likely will have negative impact on the LAND sales and rental markets, it could have been introduced with corresponding countermeasures, such as the one Bill had suggested (as I explain above), that would have helped to stabilize or added positive pressure to the already battered land sales and rental market.

To your other comment, I’ve only voted over the past few months, he has for a long while now. And like Esteban, you seem to not have an issue with my vote as long as it aligns with you views and/or vote. And I’m not saying Esteban shouldn’t vote. I think everyone that has VP should at least consider participating in the governance process of the project they belong to, if we had that happen we would have little issues at all, however to vote simply to negate another vote seems childish, but whatever.

I also see you vote quite often, and ‘no’ mostly, and if the intent of Esteban’s vote is to say that districts shouldn’t vote, then I suppose that would mean you too, as most of your VP comes from your Fluffy district, does it not?

Only about a third of my VP comes from my district, which I invested in, compared to 100% of your VP coming from DistrictX, in which many of the contributors disapprove your actions and management.
I also have issues with several of your votes, not because they are against my views or votes, but because you are voting against several good proposals solely based on the person that submit it, which is honestly a terrible behavior.
For example this one, which add features and do not have ANY drawbacks: [Resubmission] Bidding and Tendering Flow


@HPrivakos So, all districts were given the ability to vote their VP, including your own (and you do). Seems by your logic that some districts should be able to vote, as long as they meet some on-the-spot randomly created individualized criteria, while others should not be allowed at all based on similar randomly created criteria. Well, ok, you have you opinion and that’s fine. If the DAO wants to ban all districts from using their VP (or just mine specifically), then they should just make it so.

Just remember, it was my vote that saved the DAO hundreds of thousands of dollars in December when I voted down all of those money grab grant proposals; no one screamed then (except for maybe some of those that got their money grab grants denied), in fact many people DM’d me afterward thanking me for doing so, as they were sick and tired of seeing DAO funds go out the door without any real oversight and little ROI.

What I can tell you, is that you make some very incorrect assumptions by stating that I voted down a proposal simply because of who the author is, citing only one from LordLike, when in fact I have just voted ‘yes’ on one on LordLike’s proposals the other day.

I voted ‘no’ on the proposal you mentioned, not because the proposal itself was inherently flawed, but because it seems the grants system was already flawed and in need of reworking, the DAO committee is short staffed, as is the GSS, so creating another “grant” like system on top of an already stressed system did not seem like a wise idea, especially since it can be argued that the DAO Grant program has already handed out millions of dollars in grants to random people all over the world that has arguably yielded little ROI to the community that provided it.

Seems like when your current systems are stressed and/or broken, the best thing to do is concentrate what limited resources you do have fixing what is broken, before considering investing in something brand new.

I chose not to comment, like many other people do after voting. Sorry, I have a life and a job, so sometimes I have the time for comments, other times I do not, but you should not simply jump to conclusions that because I don’t comment, it is because I don’t like someone because you happened to read that somewhere.

Seems instead of being accepting of varying viewpoints, this community is all about invalidating legitimate concerns, and making unsubstantiated allegations in attempt to run any persons with rival views away. If this continues, regardless of how much free welfare money it distributes, this project will inevitably fail, because those with any real money will very likely find a more frictionless experience elsewhere.

Besides, the “He voted against me because he hates me” ploy seemed to have worked very well in this case, as that proposal passed by a very huge margin. I trust, because of its apparent success, that it will now be the go-to method of gaining crowd support.

1 Like

If you can find any examples of HP lying to his contributors or failing to deliver what he promised, we would all love to see that information.

It is a bummer for you that no such evidence exists to suggest HP isn’t doing exactly what he promised, unlike yourself.

Hello DCL community. I am the author of the Land Integrity Advisory Board proposal. Thank you all who supported the (still draft) proposal. It’s great to see that it has overwhelming support.

I agree 100% that DCL Worlds is inevitable and needs to be supported. The barrier-to-entry is an artificially created limitation making DCL less competitive than it should be and reducing it is important. But I also believe we have to chart a path forward that includes not diluting current land owners and a path toward long term appreciation potential for land. There is a win-win solution here and requiring land access (whether a rental / operating agreement or ownership) as part of the DCL Worlds increased functionality should be widely discussed and debated. I agree the builders need to be rewarded and encouraged. I am confident there is a solution here, but ignoring or hurting land owner interests due to existing personal disputes in the districts or elsewhere could be very detrimental to the platform as a whole long term. We should put aside the personal conflicts and address this very important topic with a sense of fairness, common sense and preserving the brand value of Decentraland. We have reached a huge inflection point and if we find that fair sweet spot, DCL has the potential to really take off. I am confident a fair resolution here exists.

Why does this require a Decentraland DAO vote, @louise, when the Foundation was able to deploy Worlds and expand their without one? Following the precedent, it seems like the Foundation could just deploy this functionality. In favor of the DG DAO abstaining on this one (there’s an open vote), by the way… so just curious about your rationale.

Dear land owners,

I asked for some data from the Foundation, and after three months from its launch, there are currently a large total of 90 worlds deployed, and 15 active daily users there. I think there’s no need to fret, and that we should open up the platform for as many creators as possible.

IMHO a huge percentage of the value of a LAND token is the amount of foot traffic it gets from its neighbors. That’s why it’s critical that contiguous parcels render together. Attention is all there is in this digital world.



Dear DCL fam,

My name is Jayson. I don’t usually post comment here, but first let me introduce myself.

I have been with DCL from the very beginning. I participated in the MANA ICO, first & second land auction, and I purchased MANA and LAND from secondary market. I even joined Decentraland full time between 2018-2019.

I own both LAND and MANA. It is very sad to see LAND owners have to vote like this in order to get DCL foundation’s attention.

Let’s review first, how we end up here.

1.On Dec 21st, 2022, DCL World was introduced. With the limit of 2x2, 100MB, and 100 concurrent users.
2.1 month later, On Jan 24th, 2023, The 2x2 limit was removed. The world has unlimited space to build on. I don’t think there is enough data to back this decision, and the decision is just made.

I need to remind you that neither of the above was communicated with the community, nor it is up for voting. I have raised my concern in different channels in DCL and DCL DAO’s discords. I was laughed at, and people calling me a speculator, and there has been no formal response from DCL foundation. I believe I am not the only LAND holder who tried to reach the foundation, none of us gets a respond. This was how a MANA & Land holder was treated.

Now, we are seeing this vote of adding world to events and places. We all know where this is going, 100MB, 100 concurrent users limit will be lifted gradually.

I believe both MANA and LAND holders are stakeholders in DCL. However, the LAND holders have been treated like second class citizens in DCL. Do you remember the LAND holders were not allowed to vote?

There has been a political correct narrative that people believe DCL could have been better off with lower barrier of entry(Which I agree), and the LAND owners are the one to blame. Let’s look into this issue and see how we end up with this high barrier of entry.

Now, the floor price of a LAND is 2,500 MANA. Which means the LAND has gone 2.5x in terms of MANA in the past 6 years if you participated in the first auction. At the same period of time, MANA has gone 61x. So which contributes more to the high price, MANA or LAND? Why we never hear the voice, oh, the price of MANA has gone too high, which is hurting the community?

If we are here to lower the barrier of entry, why don’t we make World free? Does buying a NAME lower the barrier? Does it solve the problem? I doubt it. If in the next bull run, MANA reach $10, we will be having the same problem today.

Just reading the stats from Esteban, 90 worlds deployed, I wonder how many of them are high quality, and how many of them are actually using more than 4 parcels. If they didn’t achieve what we wanted, maybe we should adjust it, instead of keep pushing it.

My goal here is not to start another fight. I think MANA and LAND holders, DCL foundation, DCL DAO need to work together. We all know that the only way out is to have a successful project. But, is there a way that we could achieve that without sacrificing stakeholders’ interest? I believe there is. LAND holders were in panic sell after the size limit was removed in the world. Why? Not only because they felt the world is diluting, also the fact that DCL is no longer decentralized. Someone in the foundation can make decision, or change the rule that affect your financial interest.

I hope LAND owners’ concerns are heard. It is never too late that we work together to achieve greater success.

It was not proposed as a vote on the DAO, but the release of Worlds and the size limit removal was clearly communicated via announcements on discord and post on twitter.

Wait until you learn that the Worlds server can be hosted by anyone and that anyone can remove that limit :shushing_face:

Do you remember everything that has been done to allow LANDs holders to vote? The DAO was designed for MANA holders to vote, then there was a proposal on Agora to add lands, lands were even added to Aragon, which we almost never used, I feel like a lot of effort have been done to allow LANDs to be used to vote, not that someone was trying to silence LANDs holders voices.

You would have complained even more if Worlds were free, wouldn’t you?
You can make Worlds free by hosting a Worlds server if you want, that’s totally possible. You can even make Worlds server that doesn’t need NAMEs.

That’s what being done here.

Sad if LANDs holders don’t understand that the platform being more accessible also benefit them.
I would argue that DCL is even more decentralized, anyone can VERY EASILY host a world server, how is that not decentralized?

This is called “Notification”, communication is two way.

Thanks for the spoiler. Mr. God.

It is very sad. In deed. They are not seeing what you can see. Because they can’t change anything, whereas you can. The only thing they can do, is to vote no. They commented, and either there is no response. Or there is a voice from top: “You are wrong!”

Very sad.

Should Decentraland Worlds be integrated with Events and Places?

This proposal is now in status: FINISHED.

Voting Results:

  • Include worlds in places and events 39% 8,278,912 VP (94 votes)
  • Include worlds in places only 1% 48 VP (18 votes)
  • Include worlds in events only 1% 4,828 VP (12 votes)
  • Do not include worlds in places or events 58% 12,667,007 VP (79 votes)
  • Invalid question/options 1% 30 VP (3 votes)

Should Decentraland Worlds be integrated with Events and Places?

This proposal has been REJECTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)

Hi Jayson!

I understand the concerns with worlds. I believe the feature is failing, but rather than let it fail, I think the foundation is doing good in trying to iterate and improve the feature.

I am sure that the floor price of LAND already said something about Worlds, and I wouldn’t have thought it was going to have that effect. But I believe that it holds very limited risk for land owners or the value of LAND in the long term. Here’s my perspective:

  • Some limitations on rendering inside Genesis City are consensus-driven. Some are technical. The technical ones include the vertex, texture limits. The consensus-driven limits include the “size” of a parcel. The smaller the size of parcels is, the better for LAND owners, because your building can be seen from more nearby parcels. Foot traffic is the most important reason why LAND is valuable. The 90,000 NFT limit is also, but for a different reason. LAND parcels far away from everything else are less valuable than the LAND parcels near highly-attended places. Having your place next to the Museum, Doll House, or any of the DG places for is much better than being surrounded by empty parcels. And users actually get to see it from the nearby parcels.

  • Worlds, alongside with rentals, and other initiatives, is an attempt to make it easier for creators to participate in Decentraland. In an attempt to not make it a metaverse “rented” by its users, Worlds distributes ownership to anyone that can afford a NAME. But they don’t get the foot traffic or attention that you get in Genesis City.

  • When inside of a world, you get always reminded to go back to Genesis City:

Now, this is the only argument that I think makes sense against Worlds, and this proposal in particular:

  • Attention is all there is. By creating more links towards Worlds from the Events or Places, the Foundation has the power to direct user attention from those websites towards Worlds where LAND owners don’t benefit from the extra attention.

I agree with this, but I also think that this effect gets balanced out by getting more creators onboard, more people using the SDK instead of other building tools, and more users that use Decentraland instead of other virtual world platforms. In this sense, I much prefer users to build in Decentraland Worlds rather than Minecraft, Fortnite, or any of the other virtual worlds out there. Worlds use the same tools as Decentraland, Roblox Studio is the competition that we should tackle.

What do you think? Any of these arguments make sense?

Hi Esteban,

Thank you for your reply.

I have never doubt the intention of DCL foundation. Most of us agree that we need more creators in DCL, and more creators in DCL means better quality contents and more traffic, and more creators. I also get DCL World’s intention, lower barrier of entry, while stimulate NAME market, and generate a little bit income.

However, the result of DCL World looks like a lose-lose situation here. We lowered barrier of entry, but not a lot of creators creating (from the number you have shown), also I assume the quality is not that good. What is more important, I doubt how many of them actually used more than 4 parcels. While we didn’t achieve the target of bringing in creators, we kind of crushed the faith of LAND owners. Like I explained previously, LAND owners are concern about dilution, more importantly, they can see this “God” from the DCL foundation can decide things without any communication or feedback from the community. It is just done like that, that’s why people are scared.

I always believe the idea of LAND in digital world is an important storage of value. It is like a city gorwing, people come into the city, they earn MANA through various activities, and they buy Wearables to show off, they buy NAME for identity, and finally they buy LAND to store their hard earned MANA. However a ever falling LAND price is never a good storage of value. Then they will sell their MANA for BTC or ETH and leave. In the long term, this is not good for MANA or the ecosystem either.

Like in the real world, people are paying millions in NYC but not 1 dollar for arces of land in the middle of nowhere.

Also, a dirt cheap land doesn’t mean there will be high quality contents, nor large traffic. CryptoVoxel is clearly a lesson to learn. An ever falling land price destory the existing land owners’ faith, also scare away new investors.

Again, I don’t think the LAND owners are irrational people. We have the same goal with you to make DCL a successful project, the only way to achieve this, and the most important thing right now is to bringing in creators, we all get it, and we support you.

There are potential ways we could achieve this without hurting the stakeholders.

  1. Renting market. It is actually cheaper to rent than buying a NAME. At the moment, there is a floor of 1 MANA/Parcel/Day, if we remove that floor, I am sure the rent will decrease even more. If you could rent a parcel for only several MANA per month, why spend 100 to buy a WORLD?
  2. Like in Bill’s proposal, we can expand the existing land, so every LAND becomes cheaper. (I recommend take a look at his proposal, he spent a LOT of time putting this together, and putting a lot of thoughts in it.)

I don’t think any solution above is perfect, but we do need to respond to this and rebuild investors’ confidence in the project. And this can be a starting point for discussion.

As a web3 project, we can never remove the LAND & MANA, all the economic component, so DCL becomes a web2 project to direct compete with Roblox. SecondLife showed a good example that a virtual world can exist with a virtual economy. And SecondLife failed not because of its LAND price.

I believe we all share the common goal to make DCL better, to bring creators in this world. I think this argument is no longer about the WORLD, the WORLD is one way to achieve that, and there are other ways which may or may not work. I believe this discussion is a good turning point to review the result of the WORLD, if this is not working, maybe we should try other ways. The goal is to bring creators, not to destory the core value in DCL.


LAND is not made to be a store of value, it’s meant to be used.

Then why do you support increasing LAND amount by 8 times :upside_down_face:

You talk about LAND owners faith being crushed by 90 Worlds, that we don’t need a falling LAND price and you support increasing the land supply by 8x fold, you must be joking.

1 Like

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone for their feedback (even if the proposal didn’t pass!). @Reyean I am under the impression this poll is necessary because it affects the client and dapps, but we also wanted to get an idea of community feeling. I’ll defer to Esteban for the details.

*Edited for clarification

1 Like

Your comment showed that you didn’t read that proposal.

I would just like to point out that in the 15 or 16 months I’ve been in the DAO, never have I seen so many whales resurface as I have with this single poll. Why do all the whales, with dozens of empty parcels, care about this feature? I mean I could understand if all these districts and huge sums of land were deployed and populated, but that’s just not the case. So the “little people” with no VP capital once again have no say in this topic. So it’s pretty pointless putting a poll together like this. I think the Foundation should just include it anyways. They went as far as to integrate Worlds without a DAO vote, why not just include it in places?

Someone above asked:" 1. If the Decentraland Foundation, an organization for which we all believed had similarly aligned interests, can create and implement DCL Worlds, in direct competition with an already battered Land and Rental market, without any Land or community input, what can we expect going forward?"
I don’t think this would have even been a feature to happen had it not been for AFK land owners such as the ones complaining in this forum. If LAND was deployed and populated, and LAND owners were working with those who don’t have LAND, we wouldn’t be having this conversation :sweat_smile:

The term “Free” is thrown around lot too in this forum talking about Worlds. Where are people getting “free” Worlds? Link? In all seriousness, just because the World doesn’t cost as much as LAND doesn’t make it “free.” People still had to pay money. And to some, that was a lot depending on when they minted. It’s really annoying hearing these obvious politically motivated speeches. This is a DAO, not CNN.

Decentraland has always been pretty transparent about it being an OPEN protocol. Open protocol means that eventually, Genesis won’t be the only way to access the opportunity for deploying experiencing. In reality, people could spin up Worlds before now for fairly low prices :joy: So this isn’t a new concept at all. It’s just making it more accessible. God forbid right?

“No proper communication with LAND owners” How exactly would you all like to be contacted? Because it took me MONTHS to find an LAND whale to communicate with me to get a game built. Months. Not hours, not days. Months. Y’all aren’t around, especially in the game on the LAND that you supposedly care so much about. Not to mention again that most LAND whales don’t interact with the DAO very often. There are some names voting now that I haven’t seen vote in over a year. You can see this activity too on their DAO profiles. This is all a political charade to keep their “investments” when most huge land acquisitions happened when it was pennys or even dollars to get LAND.

If majority of Genesis was built out, there wouldn’t even be a concern for “competition” because everyone would be drawn to Genesis with all the activity. I think people are worried about “competition” because they know others will outbuild/out-care them given the chance :sweat_smile: This isn’t a “Scaling solution” this is an ACCESSIBILITY solution lol. I would love to see the bustling teams that these whales have and what they’re building that they’re so worried nobody will come see.

LAND renting was a bandaid to a bigger problem. It allows accessibility but at the LAND owner’s descretion. There is not real ownership as a renter. Same with Deeds and district plots. Sounds like people are trying to replicate the American Real Estate industry and that to me is really weird lol. “Connect with LAND owners to see who is willing to Donate” gorl literally everyone without LAND has been trying to do that for the last year and y’all just wanna slap big price tags on it and not give up control. I’m sorry, but we tried that approach. Some of us were fortunate enough to find individuals to do so, but man was it tough to find that 1 yes out of the hundreds of LAND owners. We need more whales like the one I found.

“The idea of DCL Worlds, while appealing to some (those mostly without LAND)…” Exactly. I’m pretty sure there are far more people without LAND that are willing to build and deploy than those who do have LAND and don’t deploy.

Also, NAMEs have literally always been marketed as “You’ll be able to use it as a real URL with many use cases.” I’m not a mathematician, but since DCL is a URL-based experience…wouldn’t it make sense to assume that maybe one day we could link experiences to our NAMEs? :sweat_smile: Sounds like a pouting pity party from loss of “control” to me. :confused:

It’s very clear that the majority of the negative opinions from those who hate Worlds are from those who do not utilize their own LAND and run their own analytics. It’s not rocket science. Genesis will ALWAYS have some sort of advantage because of the neighboring facts. Not everyone is gonna want to change realm every time they go somewhere. Not everyone is gonna want to have LAND built with nothing around it.

TLDR: Keep building. If you’re worried about Genesis LAND, build something that will make people never want to leave :slight_smile:

1 Like