by 0x7a7280e299b79b7bd14d7501e3a03a0b77541622 (Monotributista)
Should the catalyst node with the domain peer.kyllian.me and owner 0xF78Dfd2a940c1c204d9eb5D1fF7988b7AEC3F01a be removed from Decentraland’s Catalyst Network?
Remove Kyllian’s node. Following his removal from the SAB, this aligns the Catalyst network with recent security actions. Post-removal: 8 nodes total (4 Foundation + 4 community). Minimal impact, confirmed by Foundation Platform Engineering team.
Background
In October 2025 the community voted to deprecate the DAO Committee. Kyllian and Rizk refused to hand over the multisigs holding +500 ETH, +90 LAND, and ongoing MANA fees.
After months of unsuccessful attempts at amicable resolution, the Security Advisory Board (SAB) took protective action. Kyllian was removed from the SAB and his token was burned via an inbox vote after he blocked his own removal in a direct SAB vote. The legacy Committee Delay permissions and related USDT approvals were also revoked.
Current Status
Legal proceedings continue to recover the withheld multisigs. In line with the SAB’s recent security actions, the DAO Council now proposes removing Kyllian’s Catalyst node from the official network.
Impact
After removal, the Catalyst network will have 8 nodes (4 operated by the Decentraland Foundation + 4 community-run). Content delivery to clients is handled through a cache layer and CDN, so this change will have minimal to no impact on users. This has been confirmed by the Foundation Platform Engineering team.
The catalyst has nothing to do with any of those issues 
My catalyst is the only one hosting an archipelago apart from the Foundation, meaning that this proposal is literally making Decentraland centralized.
Once my catalyst is removed, if the Foundation go away, there won’t be any servers left for players communication.
I’m also holding all assets there were every deployed to Decentraland, meaning it could have been used to replay what Decentraland looked at any stage.
This is a big loss for Decentraland, purely because of a few Argentinians being mad
That has been the theme for the last couple years of decisions at Decentraland.
So be it 
It’s disappointing to see the DAO being used for retaliation. The multisigs issue has nothing to do with the catalyst nodes. I have personally witnessed great communication and feedback from Kyllian to the dev team in regards to catalyst updates and features. So removing his node and participation from the network is a setback. It’s sad that 1 person can account for 8.5M votes so that there is no fair way to provide a counter balance against those who create these proposals as punishment and vote based on emotion rather than logic.
We should keep encouraging more community members to run nodes, and current catalyst owners are welcome to continue contributing by hosting Archipelago.
Running a catalyst isn’t overly complex. The software is open source and well documented. This isn’t some secret knowledge held by a few individuals.
The main issue here is collaboration. We need operators who act as team players and work constructively with the rest of the community, rather than gatekeeping resources or access when things don’t go their way.
For context, the full historical data has already been synced to other nodes (ap1 and eu1), and the Foundation isn’t going anywhere any time soon. The goal isn’t to have fewer nodes overall, but to replace ones that make cooperation difficult with operators who are willing to work together for the benefit of the whole ecosystem.
Of course, everyone is welcome to vote and voice their opinion if they believe this node should stay.
Once a thief, always a thief, this frenchy stole 0.1 eth from me back in the day.
It’s disappointing to see the situation with the ex DAO Committee deteriorate into such a state.
A vote, whichever way it turned out, should be honoured, whether one likes it or not. Hijacking the DAO’s treasury because you don’t like the outcome undermines that process. We’ve seen such behaviour play out in real world politics in recent years and look at how at how the world has turned out as of late.
Voting YES on principle, because Decentraland and its DAO should never be held hostage, whether its the archipelago or the DAO’s wallet(s).
This is a fake statement, the Decentralization in DCL comes from the blockchain ownership checks and from the content storage, all the rest is subject to open source and centralization as those are surroundings services that exists to support features an the reference client. The realms protocol and comms can be started by anyone at any time and any client implementing the protocol will be able to connect to any realm, there are several realms hosted by different parties that are not Foundation and that would provide connectivity and anyone would be able to start their own realm-provider (super cheap) and connect to DCL and use the content from the Catalyst network.
I’m also holding all assets there were every deployed to Decentraland, meaning it could have been used to replay what Decentraland looked at any stage.
There are more nodes in the network holding all the history of DCL, recently peer-ap1 was re-synched from scratch and peer-eu1 was never subject to Garbage Collection and therefor has all the history of DCL.
And yet none of the community run catalysts are doing it…
Once my catalyst goes out, there will not be any default alternative for comms apart the Foundation.
Yes, people can manually specify another realm-provider, it won’t go to it by default if the Foundation services go down.
The clients won’t work without all the Foundation services anyway, so it doesn’t really matter…
Both managed from the Foundation, which as we know as a long and plentiful history about collaborating with the community…
Never would the Foundation go out of their way to provide a backup of their full catalyst without garbage collection, yet I did it for MorrisMustang/AtlasCorp and more recently to Jin.
That’s very subject to interpretation. The decentralization of Decentraland can be anything you want.
All the current clients rely on closed-source services, saying “It’s decentralized because you could fork everything and re-work a large portion of the code to remove all closed source services for the client to work again” is a bit hypocrite.
because it is not necessary to preserve decentralization and is up to any node owner to hold the history of all the entities in the past, inactive entities that have been replaced by it’s owners and are not active and have no propose but to be able to go back in history. Public bkps can be posted for anyone that request one, this has already be done in the past and anyone can synch a full catalyst and synch all the history at any moment.
It is not subject to interpretation, it is what it is stated in the white paper.
Decentralization comes from the smart contracts, the blockchain and the content storage. All surrounding services created to support features are not decentralized but open sourced so that anyone can take them and run them. There are no closed service required to run the client. The few closed services that exists are for specific features supported by foundation and that are not required at the protocol level.
what’s the downside of having HP continue running his node?
Having more nodes is generally better no?
Hi Ile,
I’ll speak for myself here, though I believe the rest of the council is largely aligned on this. At the end of the day, this is about having an operator who is actively working against the rest of the team, which doesn’t make sense for the ecosystem.
Beyond what’s already been mentioned about Kyllian not returning over $2M in ETH and LAND that should be back in the Aragon Agent / DAO treasury, he has also refused to return ownership of the main Discord server, which is a corporate asset belonging to the Foundation (since they own the Decentraland IP). Despite several attempts to resolve these issues amicably, he has remained mostly silent.
When the SAB voted to remove him from the SAB, he even voted against his own removal, forcing the process to go through a full wMANA vote just to make things difficult.
While Regensis Labs is pursuing legal action to recover the financial assets, and the Foundation is working to recover the corporate assets, he continues to ignore messages or responds to call his peers names. On top of that, the Foundation is still paying him monthly to run this catalyst, even though it is not a critical piece of the network and its removal won’t disrupt operations.
It simply doesn’t feel right to keep someone on payroll who is actively working against the rest of the teams (SAB, Foundation, Regensis).
I’m not against having more nodes in general. We just need operators who are willing to collaborate constructively with everyone else.
I’ve always updated my catalyst in time, never did anything against the catalysts network.
Like to all catalysts operators 100$ + 300 MANA a month.
Considering the 2TB required for all data since inception would cost 90 USD a month on AWS, without even considering the compute, it’s not a lot
I was never contacted about that in the shared SAB channel, a proposal was silently started then three SAB members voted in the last 15 minutes of the vote. (Including Agus, not very impartial, heh?)
You are making it like I was contacted and refused. I voted no against a silent and unplanned SAB vote. I couldn’t know the intentions behind it as I was never contacted about it.
Amicably? You mean by threatening me?
I already said what I had to say, so yeah, I’m going to stay silent against repeated threats and “Do this now” and “I want you to” from Tibi and the “council”.
I can only speak for myself. Up until my last messages with you last year, I always kept the tone friendly and tried to resolve things constructively. I wasn’t involved in any threats, and I won’t comment on what others may or may not have said.
That said, the conversations did turn hostile early this year, after several months of you refusing to honor a governance proposal that had already passed. Your main argument at the time was that Esteban voted, and because he holds a large amount of MANA it wasn’t fair. Yet you had no issue with Esteban’s voting power when he supported your appointment to the SAB or the DAO committee.
Founders and early OGs have held significant MANA since the beginning, that’s never been a secret, and the governance rules have always been the same. Esteban is simply the only one who chose to keep his allocation. His vote therefore carries more weight, just as the system was designed. It seems the problem only appears when the outcome doesn’t go your way.
I’m not interested in rehashing every past exchange. The core issue remains: we have an operator who is not collaborating with the rest of the teams (SAB, Foundation, Regensis), who continues to hold significant DAO assets, and who is still receiving monthly payments from the Foundation. That combination simply doesn’t make sense for me.
@Monotributista I dont know who you are and I have nothing against you personally, but all I see from you here is a lot of bickering, drama, and personal bias making HP out to be some kind of bad actor on unrelated issues. And yet I have personally witnessed the exact opposite when it comes to his catalyst node (in direct contradiction of this proposal). In March there were 2 separate conversations where he provided good feedback and suggestions to the dev team (Lautaro Petaccio in one, and Alejo Ortega in another) which I wont screenshot for privacy reasons but others in the slack channel can confirm. This is not the behavior of a bad actor. And certainly not deserving of removal of his node. There is not a single reason stated yet that directly relates to this proposal. Just a lot of “he said she said” on unrelated issues. Issues that are already being resolved separately either through legal or other means.
It’s a slippery slope to say “I dont like how this person did X” or “I dont like that this person said Y” and to use the DAO to punish them for it. If this proposal passes, it makes it fair game for anyone to create any proposal to punish others for anything they dont like.
This feels way too much like a witch hunt. Lets keep the DAO focused on policy issues and not as a weapon used to target individuals or their reputations.
Hi @Doug-NFTWorld. I’ve been on the Council since September last year. Before that I worked at the Foundation for over 7 years as Tech Lead and Staff Engineer. Here’s my intro proposal if you’re interested: Add Monotributista to DAO Council
I think saying this is just about a personal disagreements it’s a big oversimplification, when there are millions in financial and corporate assets on the line, and this situation has dragged on for over six months despite many chances to de-escalate.
I’ve known HP for more than 8 years. We met in person back in the early days when he came to Buenos Aires and hacked with us at the office for several months. I was really fond of him and considered him a friend until recently, so this genuinely saddens me. He used to be one of the most trusted people in the project. I used to joke that he was the Marketplace v0, since before we had an official one people used him as escrow for land trades.
But at some point he started burning bridges with pretty much everyone: Foundation, Regenesis, Council, and SAB. Since this started, it has disrupted a lot of normal operations (financial audits, gas tank, bug bounties) and forced us to delay important future plans like the Treasury Mandate because the DAO Committee handover being blocked.
That’s why so many people across the ecosystem are unhappy, and I think it shows in the polls: even after Esteban’s vote basically settled the outcome, another ~1.5M VP still came in favor. And only three people voted against, one of them being HP himself.
@Monotributista I’m not here to agree or disagree with any of that. My point is that:
If you’re saying Esteban is the 8.5M vote, that saddens me even further. @starvote I dont imagine that this is what you had in mind when forming the DAO originally. The title of this proposal might as well be re-worded to say “Lets punish HP by removing his node because he’s bad”. If you’re going to use your sole voting power to prevent a fair and democratic vote by the community, why bother with a DAO proposal? Seems to defeat the purpose. That being the case, why dont I create a proposal for “Exclude Esteban from DAO votes because his VP is too high” and then you can create a proposal against me for “Ban Doug from the DAO because I dont like him” and we’ll all just create proposals against each other for everyone we dont like and for whatever reason we dont like about them.
To me this proposal is invalid because:
I dont have any vested interest in HP’s node. As he said, hosting catalyst nodes isnt even a lucrative venture. Instead, I’m making my arguments based on principle. Feel free to disagree with me, but disagree with me on principle of what the DAO should be used for, and whether this proposal fits within those parameters (not whether HP is a good or bad person).
Well I guess it’s him since I don’t know anybody else with that much VP, though I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong. And honestly, I don’t get what’s so surprising given that Decentraland is literally in litigation mode against HP over the withheld assets. That’s public knowledge at this point.
The rules for this have been clear since February 2020: any proposal to add or remove a catalyst node that gets 2M VP in a week passes. There’s no precedent for “ban Doug from the DAO” or “exclude Esteban because his VP is too high” because those aren’t things the governance system even supports. This category has always existed. And he’s not banned from the DAO, he can still participate with his VP as anybody else.
Even without that big vote, there are already ~2M VP from 20+ different people voting to remove the node. It’s not like one whale single-handedly flipped the outcome.
My vote (and I believe many others’) is also coming from principle. It’s insane to keep someone in this position (actively working against the Foundation, Regenesis, Council and SAB, holding millions in DAO assets, refusing to hand over corporate property, while still getting paid monthly) and act like nothing is wrong. That could never fly in any real organization, and from my point of view it’s actually surprising this proposal didn’t come earlier.
@Doug-NFTWorld I think HP can speak & defend for himself. Besides a Support Mod on DCL Foundation Discord backing a thief who stole (and or withholding) millions of dollars in DCL assets doesn’t align with our core values and creates conflict of interest.
I ask for Doug’s Mod privileges to be revoked @esteban
Mr Kyllian is removed from the SAB upon majority decision
There is an ongoing legal litigation
There are missing un-returned assets in the value of $2M+
The whole DCL community do not want him associated with anything DCL related
Yet you are here, acting as his legal guardian, defending him and speaking on his behalf.
You acts scream “Conflict of Interest” and in “Bad Faith” given your credentials and your position.
Yes, but not because “we dont like them anymore for such and such” as the purpose for such a proposal. It’s supposed to be performance-based. There are certain metrics that nodes are measured against such as uptime, speed, etc.
Without Esteban’s vote the Yes/No tally would be within about 500-600k VP of each other which is a lot closer. When you have someone come in with a 8.5M vote it discourages anyone else from voting differently.
We’re talking about two different principles Legal action has already been taken as I understand it. I’m not here to agree or disagree on that. The principle I’m referring to is weaponizing the DAO (as I mentioned above).
Seems we’re going around in circles at this point so I’m going to step away from the conversation, but appreciate the level-headed responses! I know that you’re not alone in your way of thinking on this, and it wasnt my intention to single you out, so thanks for not taking it personally.