[DAO:7a84f61] Can we have " /goto home " or "/goto (POI name)" as a command in chat?

by 0x0749d1abb5ca9128432b612644c0ea1e9c6cc9af (M3TA)

Hopefully the community understands my question… let me explain furthermore…

I’d like to propose an option that could help with finding locations since we don’t have a directory yet to search up locations… Is there a way if we have our location set to a home in Decentraland that we can teleport there anytime by quickly typing, “/goto home” or “goto (POI name)” if we want to go to a place that has a POI we can type in their POI name and it will link us to the coords… Not sure if the second half of this is possible…
I would love for “/goto home” to be added somehow, someway, someday…

Do you guys agree that we need better shortcuts to teleport to our favorite locations, other than bookmarking them on our browsers?

  • Yes, this is necessary.
  • No, this is unnecessary.
  • Invalid question/options

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

I’m always torn sometimes with these types of polls.

Because I do want to say yeah this is a great idea, but I’ve seen without an implementation path provided, the function of the poll (which can then be escalated through governance) is not really the way to go about what you’re seeking. And then the poll will be dead.

I’d suggest finding someone in the community who might know how to implement this, then supplying a poll with the question while offering the solution. For now I’ll be voting invalid.

1 Like

I like the idea of adding a /home command as it nicely compliments the recent feature addition of being able to set a home plot. While I am for the proposed, I do have concerns with if we are able to make these kinds of changes?

I believe I recall seeing @HPrivakos mention either on discord or in another DAO proposal that the function of the DAO is limited in the case of something like this as it is a “feature request”, not something binding the Decentraland Foundation must follow and enact. I’ve spent the past hour re-reading the DAO docs and trying to understand if a governance proposal can come with the binding effect of a feature request, but it’s not entirely clear. While it is stated the DAO has control of the Mana, Names, and Land contracts and their associated functions of funding grants, managing catalyst nodes, banning names, and adding POIs, the section on Governance Proposals points to be used when issues are more complex than these straight forward actions. It does not however provide much clarity on how a Governance Proposal should be used besides outlining the basic proposal process.

If we review the history of past proposals here, most we’re used to solve issues in relation to the management of the Mana, Names, and Land contracts such as this one to establish a process for removing DAO committee members or restructuring the wearables submission fee. At the same time we have seen other “feature requests” such as adding district names to the map or adding custom spawn locations, along with being used to circumvent the existing grant awards process to extract an excessive amount of money from the DAO.

Perhaps some example should be added to the Governance Proposal docs that give examples of what can and cannot be accomplished along with specific clarity on the process for voting on and enacting features outside of the Mana, Names, and Land contracts? Does the Decentraland community have the power to enact feature changes to global game mechanics?


So I can vote yes on this but what does that accomplish? Just want clarity. This won’t create what you are asking for, correct? If I vote YES, then what? If I vote NO, will this then not be something that can be created in the future?
I’ll state this again, I agree with what you are attempting to achieve, especially the directory. That has been a bit of a nuisance to me since I arrived. Finding the coordinates is no easy task and while you can pull up all the locations within in the map there is no search option. You just have to scroll.

1 Like

From what I’ve read which sums it up nicely… “The purpose of the Pre-Proposal Poll is to introduce a governance issue to the community, gauge community sentiment, and determine if there is enough support to move forward with the drafting of an initial proposal.”

Words taken from this governance proposal poll DAO Governance Proposal Stages

After a poll is passed, it can be escalated to a governance proposal, which if passed has stages to go through but has the possibility to becoming binding governance. This avenue of the DAO doesn’t exactly function the same as the grants side.

1 Like

Binding proposals are for very detailed actions that can be enacted on-chain.
Features requests usually requires work on the client/sdk, which cannot be done on-chain or by the DAO Committee.

1 Like

I understand the process and that basic description you provided, but I think more clarity is needed on what a “governance issue” is defined as vs what it is not. @HPrivakos response below yours summarizes what I believe to be the answer based on my research, that governance proposals can only be used to make changes to the usage or function of Decentraland’s smart contracts or the DAO governance process. If this is the case, feature requests then sit outside of this as stated they are work that cannot directly be completed by the DAO Committee and require action on the part of the Foundation’s development team.

Where I would like more information is if feature requests are not something actionable by the DAO, does creating a governance proposal like this one have any purpose or action? Potentially it could inform the Foundation as I imagine they keep tabs on the day to day of the DAO to some extent, but are feature requests made as governance proposals essentially suggestions? And if this is the case, what is the correct process for the DAO to suggest a feature request to the development team?

Perhaps @yemel would be able to shed some light as well?

Can we have " /goto home " or “/goto (POI name)” as a command in chat?

This proposal is now in status: REJECTED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes, this is necessary. 49% 199,851 VP (43 votes)
  • No, this is unnecessary. 26% 108,530 VP (6 votes)
  • Invalid question/options 25% 104,895 VP (4 votes)