[DAO:9b5dfd6] Remove 'Name Ban' as one of the Common Actions Categories in DAO Proposals

by 0x613e052555ac74ff6af0fc64e40e8035c1e9dcf8 (DripGod)

Linked Pre-Proposal

Name Ban - Establishing guidelines for which a particular NAME would qualify to be banned.


The proposal to remove ‘Name Ban’ as one of the Common Actions Categories in DAO Proposals is motivated by the need to ensure alignment with the principles and values outlined in Decentraland’s Terms of Use and the ENS DAO Constitution.


Previously, there was a discussion within the DAO community about whether guidelines should be established for banning specific names within the ecosystem.
However, the feedback from this discussion was clear: banning people’s assets, including their names, should not be a practice endorsed by the DAO.


The primary problem this proposal addresses is the potential infringement on users’ rights and ownership of their digital assets, specifically the ownership of names in the Decentraland ecosystem.
The current Decentraland Terms of Use, in section 12.4, emphasizes the importance of respecting ownership and management of LAND, Non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and user-created content. This aligns with the core tenet of the ENS DAO Constitution, which states that “Name ownership shall not be infringed.”
By removing ‘Name Ban’ as a Common Actions Category in DAO Proposals, the DAO reaffirms its commitment to respecting users’ rights and maintaining a fair and open ecosystem for all participants.


Remove ‘Name Ban’ as a Common Action Category in DAO Proposals under:

“Name ownership shall not be infringed.”

The Decentraland DAO will not enact any change that infringes on the rights of Decentraland’s Name users to retain names they own, or unfairly discriminate against name owners’ ability to transfer, or otherwise use their names.


This proposal seeks to fortify the foundation of Decentraland’s principles and values. It acknowledges the importance of respecting user ownership, aligns with established constitutions, and ultimately strives for a more inclusive, fair, and rights-conscious Decentraland ecosystem.

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

1 Like

Voted ‘YES’ in the Pre-Proposal Poll because I thought this was going to take a different direction. I believe we can have agreed general guidelines without dispensing the ‘Name Ban’ category.

What I would definitely do is to increase the thresholds for banning NAMES, since 500K is a joke with the current playing VP, and there’s not safety for those assets.


What a timing :thinking:

1 Like

Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated :handshake:

Originally, setting clear guidelines for these was the intention. After receiving all but one response on the Pre-Proposal regarding whether we should just remove the category so that NAMEs cannot be banned, on which I agreed I decided it might be better to just do so.

Objective would be making NAMEs and the worlds within them somewhat similar to LAND. We don’t ban LAND as it would require the smart contract to be updated and could set a bad precedent, but now we can deploy content to NAMEs too so people could try to ban a NAME based on the content deployed as it is easily available as one of the categories while a “Ban a LAND/Parcel” one is not (could say the same for wearables).

What’s to stop someone from putting a banner or something similar to their LAND with what would be the NAME they mint? It would essentially be the same scenario I would say.

In the event that the community believes this category to still be beneficial in any way and decides to keep it as one of the common actions, I would still be interested in working on guidelines we can all agree on for any NAME to be eligible for a ban going forward.

1 Like

This is a bit contradictory to say when introducing restrictions to one of the main assets in DCL.

1 Like

There has only been a handful of banned names up until now. What I’m noticing recently is certain groups who find certain names rude, racist, derogatory, personal due to how they feel towards that name’s owner rather than the name itself representing any of the mentioned characteristics. I would have to say we do have to remove the NAME Ban all together from DAO. DCL has become a delegated VP playground for groups who target certain individuals and gang up on his/her name so they can ban it collectively. Not because the name at question is racist, rude, derogatory etc…

Best example is the Shemale name ban. I would be treating all these people one by one as they get their delegated VP taken away and when they need a skin or a name from me or from any of the top 10 holders.

The same name shemale.eth is not banned on ENS maybe we should take lessons from them.

1 Like

DAO is being swayed into making decisions against their will by certain groups. War between the DAO, Foundation & the Community will only hurt Decentraland’s reputation. Not a healthy solution to begin with. This recent act further begs to question how much Decentraland is “DECENTRALISED

Not to mention how this all looks to an outsider. All this caused by Delegated VP’s.

I have to disagree, in some cases people had no issue until a specific NAME came into play and in other cases there could already be some friction or dispute between 2 individuals. Then a name creation/purchase coming into play that is in some way related to one side or the other and only exacerbates the situation. I do believe there are also other considerations to account for.

  1. Legality - Copyright infringement. - Does this apply at all? I know some name domains block certain brands from being purchased to save for brands but DCL does not. Why is that? Do we have some special pass or is it something those others do just because?
  2. Misrepresentation - There are names out there that belong to people that are not associated in any way with the name other than ownership. This can cause confusion and lead to bad actors luring victims into their web to suck them dry.
  3. Ensuring Decency and Respect - This is just human perception on different matters but can also be a reflection on Decentralan as a whole and could be damaging to the name.

Thank you.

Hello, thanks for the input :handshake:

Agreed, however I believe the actions on this scenario belong to the the individual, not the asset. Unless we are to put limits on what a user is allowed to mint as their NAME, which would also defeat the point here.

  1. There’s a section on copyrights infringement on the Content Policy, “2. Prohibited Content”. As far as, why there are no NAME domain blockers in DCL, I owe you a response. I guess we could say we are Decentralized in that aspect.

  2. This is a topic that was touched on while the proposal to ban “DCLDAO.dcl.eth” was happening. While I can see how a NAME could potentially be misleading, it is also our own duty to conduct the necessary research on any individual or platform we engage with. DCL NAMEs are not a badge of verification or anything similar for that matter. Having that said, hate scammers with a passion.

  3. Agreed.

Ok so maybe I am unclear here a litte as you state: ( I can’t figure out the quoting thing only get blockquote when I use the “” so forgive me)

“Unless we are to put limits on what a user is allowed to mint as their NAME, which would also defeat the point here.”

Im reading this as that we need to put limits to name but yet you want to remove the ban process that removes those limits. So will this remove the “Name Ban” and there be a new proposal to create a guideline of acceptable vs unacceptable names? Or I am just reading this all wrong. Thank you.

Once you have selected the text you would otherwise ‘copy’, a “Quote” small button will pop up under, just click that and voila. :wink:

What I meant was, if a situation like the one you described did arise again, there’s nothing we could do to prevent someone from minting any NAME unless there were “blockers/limits” on what a user could mint in the first place which then would lead to restrictions on the freedom of expression of individuals. We don’t ban LAND parcels from being able to be used in any way based on the owner’s actions, I would like for NAMEs/Worlds to be treated the same as we now have the ability to deploy content to them the same way we would do for LAND.

As the one who made the following suggestion to the Code of Ethics: “Refrain from endorsing changes that infringe upon the Community’s rights, specifically concerning their virtual assets like LANDs, ESTATEs, and NAMEs.”, this proposal aligns with my vision. In exceptional cases, we would still have a 3-stage governance process to make an exclusion.



Remove ‘Name Ban’ as one of the Common Actions Categories in DAO Proposals.

This proposal is now in status: REJECTED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes 43% 3,219,468 VP (48 votes)
  • No 56% 4,119,540 VP (52 votes)
  • Abstain 1% 5,233 VP (5 votes)