by 0x247e0896706bb09245549e476257a0a1129db418 (LordLike)
This proposal aims to gauge Community opinion regarding the rebranding of Decentraland Worlds to DreamSpace.
Please share your thoughts related to this proposal in the DAO Discord or comments (forum post).
VOTING OPTIONS:
YES: I support rebranding Worlds to DreamSpace.
NO: Leave as it is.
Iâd like to understand the rationale of changing from Worlds to DreamSpace. I personally think either Worlds or Spaces is adequate, short and simple.
Worlds stuck pretty well but iâm assuming its because VRChat uses Worlds?
Decentraland DreamSpace vs Decentraland Worlds. I really liked the simplicity of âWorldsâ for the length. Decentraland Spaces would of been cool maybe w/o the dream part. Also, I think of @serenaelis now when I hear DreamSpace because of her DayDream brand XD
I am also curious as to how much scene operators will have to update their CLIs/scene files to reflect any new changes.
Not the worst, but not the best decision either.
I like the sound of it but think had it been that from the beginning it might have been better. Since itâs implementation people have come to know it as Decentraland Worlds or DCL Worlds and this expresses that it is Decentraland where as Dream Spaces could be anything. I understand that things get rebranded however, this is still young and should go through itâs Worlds phase first.
As Iâve stated on other Worlds-related proposals, I believe that there are bigger issues to address first with Worlds before considering changing its name. Worlds should be fully flushed out with all its features and integrations before a name change should even be evaluated. Itâs only been live for 6 months. Most name changes donât happen until a year or so after for data purposes.
The way the GitHub commit expresses it is that the reason for the change is because the name is âconfusing.â Which isnât enough to strong-arm a rebrand so early. I donât think Iâve ever heard anyone saying theyâre confused as to what it is from the public or the community. Would like to see more evidence/data behind this proposition.
Also isnât there a Formal Request process now that we can inquire about this through? @Matimio
Hi Everyone!
While the official name change of Worlds has not yet taken place, weâd like to give some additional insight into why this decision was made.
Why change the name âWorldsâ?
In summary, the name âWorldsâ was found to be too general and not the best for marketing purposes. As the feature is currently in a beta state, the name was always subject to change.
Why âDreamSpacesâ?
'DreamSpacesâ is a more imaginative, enticing, and accurate description of what the feature currently known as âWorldsâ can enable. The name is more unique and marketable, resolving the issues presented by âWorldsâ.âDreamSpacesâ gives readers a better idea of what the feature is at just a glance: a space for you to set your imagination free, experiment, and transform your ideas into reality. A place that can change into anything you dream of, but which is private unless you share it, just like your dreams. DreamSpaces offer all the creative freedom of Decentraland in the setting of your own space.
Hi @KimboNFT thanks for providing the explanation. IMO the choice of name should be all encompassing and evergreen, to reflect the multitude of use cases, for an individual all the way to a business entity.
While DreamSpaces does sound like a space where anyone can unleash their dream, it also sounds like a campaign title and direction.
A consideration would be if an organisation like Goldman Sachs, Nike or PWC wants to create an experience in said space. Would you want them to be telling their execs that itâs Decentraland DreamSpaces, or Spaces/Worlds. Iâd think that DreamSpaces would sound âdreamyâ instead of professional.
I understand the difficulty in choosing a replacement since Worlds can be confusing and too generic (vrchat/spatial) and Spaces(Twitter). Perhaps more consideration can be given before choosing a name thatâs more apt than Worlds?
Have u all explored the possibility of choosing a name that isnât used to describe a space?
Hey Kim! Thanks for responding and giving some perspective.
While I respect the response and information, this implies that the decision to change the name was already made. Without a DAO vote. If we can introduce Worlds without a DAO vote and change the name without a DAO vote, why canât we integrate it with Places/Events without a DAO vote?
Additionally, I personally think DreamSpace doesnât fit within the âone wordâ branding that Decentraland has used thus far with any of its products. DreamSpace honestly makes me think of every other platform except Decentraland when reading it. I agree with other sentiments that more time should be given to brainstorming a new name before just outright changing it.
âIf we can introduce Worlds without a DAO vote and change the name without a DAO vote, why canât we integrate it with Places/Events without a DAO vote?â
Land whales are the ones who are against integrating Places/Events with Worlds. They are short sighted and clueless as they believe this feature will devalue their portfolios.
As for DreamSpaces, initially I hated it, however after some careful consideration it made much more sense then âWorldsâ for better marketing strategies.
@jar0d The term âWorldsâ is used by many other things alsoâŚ
I no longer see hidden messages, have you been banned from DAO Discord 
@JasonX To assume that land whales/owners are shortsighted and clueless would also be a mistake.
Imagine if shareholders of a company were initially promised that there will be no dilution of their shares, and then down the line it gets diluted to infinity without consultation. No shareholder would be pleased, especially if itâs a unilateral decision. That is what happened.
Perhaps an example that could apply to names or L1 wearables would be that the foundation takes a unilateral decision to allow all users to mint any name/wearable multiple times, at the cost of 1 mana, because thatâs the message the foundation sent to land owners.
I am for the idea of integrating both worlds and lands, but not at the cost of centralisation in terms of the decision making process, especially if thereâs a functioning DAO.
@3Point1Four This is a valid point and I am aware itâs a fight with the Land owners. However, I do believe that most Land owners that are upset are ones that are not actively using the Land for what it was intended for. If all Land owners had something worth staying in Genesis Land for, then this wouldnât even be up for discussion. But the reality is that majority (not all, donât come for Land owners :P) of Land owners have zero interest in building out cool experiences but rather are interested in âpowerâ and financial gain. Which I think is a very weird approach to have in a creator/builder-focused platform.
The point I was trying to make @JasonX was why are the big decisions being made without DAO participation? When that happened with the introduction of Worlds the sentiment was very clear that the Foundation heard our feedback and wouldnât do something like that again. I can only wonder if this would have been the case again with the name change had @web3nit not made this proposal.
Agreed. There has to be more usage of LANDs
DreamSpaces wagmi. In JasonX we trust . Change name to whatever you want this shit stupid as hell to argue over. Team should decide themselves.
I didnât say it wasnât.
but if the purpose of changing the name was to avoid confusion with other products, it would make sense to choose a name that wasnât already being used by something successful enough to have a wikipedia page.
only those options?
I vote for âdWorldsâ ! 
like this option 
Do you support Worlds rebranding to DreamSpace ?
This proposal is now in status: FINISHED.
Voting Results:
Do you support Worlds rebranding to DreamSpace ?
This proposal has been REJECTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)
