by 0x87956abc4078a0cc3b89b419928b857b8af826ed (Nacho)
The Decentraland Foundation is working on a Rentals Protocol to let landowners put their LAND for rent in the Decentraland Marketplace. This will allow any community member who wants to build an experience in Decentraland but does not hold LAND, to rent it for a given period.
Since LAND is an NFT that has Voting Power (VP) attached to it, a discussion and a decision around this need to be made. Currently, there are multiple LAND Rental protocols but with them every time a LAND or Estate is rented, a smart contract functions as the escrow of the asset. Therefore, the asset owner is the Rental smart contract, and that VP gets “lost”. In other words, that VP will be assigned to the Rental smart contract who cannot possibly vote or do anything on the DAO. To fix this, we need a Snapshot strategy that either reassigns the VP to the LAND owner or assign the VP to the renter’s wallet.
The Decentraland Foundation has already created a Snapshot strategy to keep the VP as the owner of the LANDs and Estates, but after discussing with community members the decision was to publish a community signaling poll first before activating the strategy.
Summarizing, this poll tries to understand the community sentiment around the approach, should keep losing circulating VP when renting LANDs or should we maintain that VP in circulation via either the owner or the renter’s wallet?
Note: A follow-up discussion needs to be made regarding other Rental protocols. Since they could also want to have a Snapshot strategy to manage VP, potentially a working group could be made to define the requirements and sort out an implementation plan.
Yes, VP remain attached to the owner’s wallet.
Yes, VP should be delegated to the renter’s wallet while the rental is active.
No, VP should not be counted if the LAND/Estate is rented.
As of now, prices of entry are low for businesses to buy a few pieces of land. Renting doesn’t show commitment to Decentraland in my opinion. I feel once most land is occupied and used, and buying isn’t a reasonable option, then this should be revisited.
My vote is YES, Keep it to the land owner. If this is implemented, what’s the point of owning land in Decentraland, why not just rent? Owners should definitely have the say, not the Renters. Owners can always delegate their VP.
The wording has me a little perplexed, maybe it’s time for more coffee and less Halloween candy… I want the vp to remain in my wallet if I rented my land out, because personally I feel that I want to have the future ability to vote to protect my assets. Although renters might be active in Decentraland, I might have a more active interest in voting in the DAO. It would seem that the “Yes” option below is correct.
Yes, VP remain attached to the owner’s wallet.
To me this choice below is vague. What does “not counted” mean. Does that mean it’s taken completely out of the pool of vp? Not counted by the renter? Or not counted by the owner?
No, VP should not be counted if the LAND/Estate is rented.
@Tudamoon@ArtReYou How do you interpret this? I feel like the NO option would take the vp from both the owner and the renter, and it would be locked in the smart contract.
No, VP should not be counted if the LAND/Estate is rented: Neither the original owner or the renter have VP.
Yes, VP remain attached to the owner’s wallet: The original owner keeps the VP
Yes, VP should be delegated to the renter’s wallet while the rental is active: The VP is moved to the renter.
The “No, VP should not be counted if the LAND/Estate is rented” option exists because the land is transferred to the rental contract. So technically the contract has the VP.
Thanks Eibriel, this was my understanding too, but wanted to make sure my fuzzy brain wasn’t getting me mixed up.
I think if owners automatically lost the vp by renting, it would make it less appealing to rent their land out for owners who are actively voting in the DAO. For owners who are not active in Decentraland or the DAO, it would be beneficial for the renter to have the vp.
Can we have a 5th option where the owner gets to choose whether to delegate or keep their vp?
(Sorry Nacho! I’m sure that makes more work! )
I believe the VP should remain with the land owner, who can delegate accordingly. If VP is going to the renter, there could be instances where users rent a land before their proposal to gain more VP.
@Tudamoon “No” in this case means a land owner who choses to rent, using the smart contracts being created, will lose the associated VP during the rental period. If you want owners to retain the associated VP, you should select “Yes, VP remain attached to the owner’s wallet: The original owner keeps the VP”
tbh i’m a little surprised about this in general - i had thought that the rental platform created by DCL was going to take advantage of the SetUpdateOperator function of the land contract, in which case there’s no need to send your LAND to a smart contraact and the VP delegation becomes a moot point. It’s outside of the scope of this vote perhaps, but I’m curious why such a decision was made.
In any case, I’ll vote yes to keep the VP with the owner, since as @mattimus says, they can choose to delegate as they wish.
It does make use of the update operator, but it needs to be transferred so the owner can’t transfer/sell the land after renting it until the rent period is over.
I’ve rented and sold 49+ lands in my time running Decentraland’s biggest realtor, DCLRealEstate.org
Only one time, i’ve encountered a tenant ACTUALLY needing voting power of my landlord. And a few times tenants have been interesting of POI’s when i’ve guided them along.
I vote YES BELONGS TO OWNER!!!. VP belongs to the land-owner. Rental is for business and activity growth in Decentraland, but you shouldn’t recieve DOZENS of influence politically for LEASING 1x1’s for 20 usd a month by landowners. Outsider’s of DCL will be able to manipulate and get dozens of power quickly, for a couple of dollars.
My personally opinion of rental will be, that when rental is possible for all - prices of 1x1’s will fall down to 10, 20, 30 usd a month… And why should a tenant then recieving 2k VP per 1x1? Dosen’t makes sense.
Exactly. As @HPrivakos and @cazala said. The asset needs to be transferred to another smart contract (Rental Smart Contract) so that nobody can transfer it while the rent runs.
@Nacho
Would be best option, but transfer fee’s will be too much. (And A LOT of land-owners WONT rent their land, simply cause their lands are being transfered out of their wallet)
How about, just saying that rental will be paid after each month (30 days) So the tenant have secured his payment until every period is fufilled.
This is how we do it today at DCL Real Estate. We only had one incident since october last year, where a landlord has broken a agreement before time, and this tenant got 100% refunded, and had 2 weeks of rent for free, and just rented something new afterwards…
Nearly ALL landslords keep their terms when renting… cause they want to get PAID!
Im not saying which option is the best one to go, just sharing my experince as a middleman
The issue @Klockmann is that this needs to be enforced on-chain. Without transferring the LAND to the Rentals contract, how would you enforce that both the owner does not transfer the LAND and the tenant pays by the end of the month?
Im not technically on board with this discussion, how it could be made to work on the chain… But just sharing my thoughts on the matter.
In DCL Real Estate, we simply hold the payment of the tenant for 30 days. After lease period we release it to landlord.
@Nacho
If the landlord transfers/sell/withdraw BEFORE rental term is over we simply does not pay him, cause he knew this from the beginning, of rental.
And tenant is not getting operator rights before rental payment is confirmed.
But yeah… not saying which way to go… just sharing my thoughts on the matter. Transfering the land-asset to another wallet than the owner’s will be expensive, and a lot of land-owners wont rent their lands simply because of transfering.
But if we talk security, then 100% the best option would be to transfer the land asset to a security escrow wallet hold by the DAO/DCL foundation - in my opinion.
We’re ourselfs at DCL Real Estate have a rental project in development where we also went with the escrow-wallet solution for best security.
But im afraid with launching of DCL’s rent platform that land-owners wont rent their lands simply because of they need to transfer their assets to another wallet… If DCL chooses so, it needs to be fully automatic and not controlled by one person.
Crypto is a trust-matter… and a space with not much of it… So transfering assets takes some nerves! If we can make it, like the estate combine/dissvolve works today, with rental… It will be a little expensive… but works very well.
