[DAO:84a294b] Does the DCL Foundation's launch worlds seriously violate the rights and interests of existing landholders?

by 0x2846a9bfbcaab8690b00f01d9e7f92c5ff8a58bf (dunlei)

They recently announced the launch the world beta. People can buy a name for 100 mana, and then they can get a 2x2 world for free and permanently, which is equivalent to the size of four lands. Compared with land, the world has basically the same functions except that it has no voting rights and cannot be displayed on the map. Although the world can only allow 100 concurrent accesses, no land has ever had 100 concurrent accesses so far, so this restriction is meaningless. Because the name can be sold in unlimited quantities, it means that the world is unlimited. So, are the rights and interests of the existing land holders seriously eroded as a result? Because for newcomers who can get the world at a very low cost, why should they buy expensive land? Even renting is unwise. As early contributors, the land holders, especially the small land holders, felt betrayed and abandoned: they thought they were buying limited edition assets and could benefit from them as the project grew, but now the new worlds has greatly diluted their rights and interests. This is very unfair. The DCL Foundation used technical means to circumvent the original commitments, which obviously violated the spirit of the contract.

I am not against developing worlds, because the project needs to lower the threshold to attract more people to participate and bring prosperity, which is a good thing. However, DCL Foundation should compensate for the dilution of land holders’ rights and interests, and re empower land without sacrificing the interests of early investors.

As early investors of the project, we can bear the risk of poor development of the project, but we do not want to bear the risk of infringement of rights and interests due to the breach of trust of the project fund. What do you think about the changes in the rights and interests of landholders after the launch Worlds?

  • Landholders’ rights shall be compensated
  • Landholders’ rights need not be compensated
  • Landholders’ rights have not been violated
  • Invalid question/options

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

Im a early investor! I love decentraland! It exists because of us!.. only voted in the dao 5 times… oh wait. Buys land doesnt deploy just wants to flip or rent. Get rekt non building non deploying ****s. Ive watched people who woulda loved the chance to build now get it. used let someone build on mine for the cause for free. When i saw the greed and non deployed land everywhere and the non minted out Aetheia figured rip and sold. Foundation saw these problem and they corrected it. Worried about the price your assets then build shit on your land in the realms that make it stand out more instead worrying about every dude who can only afford a name. Self centered egotistical pricks who are all about themselves vs the platform. May your parcels floors get rekt until you learn to be your brothers keeper.


I’m fine with whatever decision is made but I think is good to look for an equilibrium.
Allowing the entrance of new builders and reward the early investors.

What I would do:

  • Limit the users to 38 instead of 100.
  • Increase world limits by holding or renting genesis land.

I understand the spirit of the messaging here, but DCL Worlds doesn’t change the real challenge - which is to build engaging content. Whether you own DCL LAND or NAME, you have the burden to figure out what kind of engaging content to deploy on the land. As a result, DCL Worlds doesn’t diminish the value of land, it will only highlight the problem instead, which could bring on more developers into the ecosystem, since more people will have developer bandwidth (Land) and provides a bigger market to devs to make content.

Once the lack of content is figured out, DCL LAND owners have the benefit of being connected to other LANDs with engaging content. This provides a positive feedback loop which dramatically increases the value of DCL LAND.

I think this is a good move.


As someone who is not a builder, who does not own LAND, but does own a NAME, tons of fashion wearables and participates in the DAO when I can ~ I find DCL Worlds and LAND ownership extremely different in terms of value proposition and capabilities.

I would still like to own LAND one day. I envision my DCL World being more of my “home” / personalized space, and whatever I deploy on my future LAND could be a business hq, perhaps a statue…basically something that benefits more from being public facing and discoverable, that resonates with a wide variety of people.

If I did own LAND, I would not look at this new venture as a threat at all. This is early days still. Patience is a virtue.



Overworld land remains exactly the same and is what you originally bought, personal spaces change nothing. Having interoperable personal 3D spaces is not just occurring in DCL, there are many web-based room experiences happening and it is an essential part of the metaverse.

Thinking that this devalues your land is a scarcity mindset and short-term thinking, in order for overworld land to have maximum value, you need DCL to be the main backbone and hub of the open metaverse.

Regardless - DCL and DAO should always put the ideals of open interoperable metaverse development above those of investor profits, that is what separates us from Meta.

This update has only made me more bullish on land, will likely re-enter the space with a larger parcel soon.


No, I think it’s a push to land value in the long run. Just think about this, everyone can buy a cheap house in a village that is far away from the main city. And after they developed their prototype in this remote village, and raised some money, what do they need to do next? The answer is moving to a bigger city like NYC or London…

It is essentially the same here, people would do things in their Name World first, prove themself, raise some money, and buy land in genesis city… so when more ppl can afford to buy Name world to test their business model, the more projects will come to DCL, the more lands they need in genesis city, thus, push the land value

And I think owning a Name World and testing in your own World is a much better experience than Renting land to test your business.

1 Like

Definitely not. One of the reasons why Roblox become so popular is because they let anyone build anything. This is the best thing for the long-term and it will benefit land owners too.

In fact, there is no Decentraland without content. If making content is hard, therefore, nothing will go up (if that’s what you care).

As a land owner, I think DCL Worlds is one of the best decisions ever taken by the foundation, honestly.


My opinion on this topic:
for me that users can create their own space is a great triumph for decentraland, I always thought that it needed that users could build, but unlike the direction of the critics I think they should be able to create their own world in a space bigger and would be much more powerful.

After perhaps 100 developments, let’s see 3 interesting ones. I don’t see it as competition for the lands. Even if a particular section for “most visited worlds” is added, if priority is still given to lands in the ecosystem (genesis city map, events, places…)

also, i think It’s strange that a decision that breaks the rules of the game so much is not voted on beforehand, but I think it’s good for the ecosystem though…

The limits are not enough, right now 100 concurrent users may be fine due to the drop in users but not in the future, and I think that if we really want to be able to create worlds it should be a minimum of 8, 12 plots. And more could be awesome to make the worlds be worlds (for example imagine a big land with some simple mountains as borders around a castle), im good with the 100mb limit.

I had several ideas and I think I will refrain from developing anything for now. (Waiting to see how it progresses and how sdk7 progresses, due i need select how invest my time)

In my case with the spanish museum (only 2 lands) I have managed to do great things at a time cost → Lose time developing how to compress a lot in a very little space. To my worlds now feels similar, you could do great things but expending more time in encapuslate it in only 4 lands.
I see myself limited.It can feel claustrophobic. Too many things too close together.

On the other hand, about the landholders:

I think that if the limits between lands and worlds are clearly marked, it would be beneficial, for example, the worlds ARE NOT in genesis city. They do not appear on the map or in the lists of visits. They cannot create events.
My idea is that to exploit the performance of a world you must have a link in at least one decentraland land.

I think that the well-planned worlds could give an explosion of development, many of them will be tests, but maybe someone knows how to exploit the potential of decentraland.
It is impossible except for large companies that want more than anything to advertise to acquire a large amount of land (at least from my point of view), and those interested in creating different and interesting things are a bit gagged.
but they are the ones who can make the difference. We have seen various brands land in decentraland for years and after an interesting event their lands become irrelevant.
They enter to advertise, not to attract users.
Investors who do not develop directly are waiting for decentraland to work without them in order to sell at a profit. That won’t attract players either.

Good feature, necessary for the growth of decentraland, maybe with some friction in the short term for landholders (I understand) but the owners are the first interested in decentraland attracting developers and players so in the long term it will benefit them. They must understand the vision that it is necessary to promote features to growth, as comunity of creators and players.

1 Like

Private Server-Integrated Experience > DCL Land > DCL Worlds

There is a use for each one. If you’ve tried DCL Worlds out, you’ll see right away what its flaws are. If anything, it gives an entry-level builder’s experience which may go on to create super builders from within our community.

Some may get away with hosting a simple build there, but as soon as player interaction is required, it’ll make more sense to upgrade to a parcel of land so they’re on the main network of players. Land will always be more ideal for this. Worlds has island lag and realm limitations which makes interacting with others a little sticky.

And as for P2E games, those can be clunky on land as it is. It might be extremely difficult to run a P2E game off Worlds, but I suppose that depends on the game. Using a 3rd party server to deliver where possible enhances this experience - especially with multiplayer/pvp functions.

Vote: “Landholders’ rights have not been violated”

DCL Worlds increases the use of the SDK and DCL Editor/Builder. It familiarizes people with the process of scene deployment. It reduces the number of corrupted scenes onto catalyst servers and thus increases the likelihood of a less buggy in world experience. A personal realm is akin to the minor leagues where the goal for everyone is to make it to the big show.

100% agree with the above statement. It’s already happening in many other places. Offering a similar option in DCL keeps it on a competitive footing.

Does the DCL Foundation’s launch worlds seriously violate the rights and interests of existing landholders?

This proposal is now in status: FINISHED.

Voting Results:

  • Landholders’ rights shall be compensated 8% 234,664 VP (101 votes)
  • Landholders’ rights need not be compensated 1% 12 VP (17 votes)
  • Landholders’ rights have not been violated 91% 2,627,996 VP (72 votes)
  • Invalid question/options 0% 0 VP (3 votes)

I am a new land owner in DCL, I don’t look at it like my right have been Violate. I look at it like I can have more land for the same price.

Does the DCL Foundation’s launch worlds seriously violate the rights and interests of existing landholders?

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

Now that the limit has been lifted from 2x2 to unlimited, has there been any more discussion or resistance about this by landholders?