[DAO:bed204e] Status of Original Contributors of District X

by 0x247e0896706bb09245549e476257a0a1129db418 (LordLike)

Linked Pre-Proposal

Status of Original Contributors of District X


This proposal aims to return Land to the community of original Contributors of District X (formerly known as “Red Light District”).


District X, which is one of the largest on the platform, has been appropriated by an authoritarian District Leader who has chosen to flout community rules, ignore contributors whilst operating and managing the District as a single entity for personal gain. District Leader now claims ownership of over 2,000 (!) Land. This, we argue, goes against the rationale and ethos of Decentraland and its community.

More information, including a timeline and a petition can be found:


We propose that District X contributors should be given the opportunity to present their case to the DAO in order to regain decentralised, accountable and democratic control of the District. Contributors should be returned the rightful ownership of their Land, which, after all, they contributed to make the District possible in the first place. If approved, Land ownership should be transferred back to Contributors. We seek advice on two possible resolutions: complete ownership or a royalty system.


DCL developers can implement it.


Let the DAO community decide what to do with it.

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

RobL has failed to provide proof he’s made good on any of the promises of 2.1.1
RobL did follow through

Additionally, despite claiming that 2.1.1 was not a binding agreement, he does appear to have presented it, and signed it, as though it was one at the time it was being voted on.

When Rob has been given a chance to explain his side of the story, he has consistently chosen to make passive-aggressive replies about my mental health

Or to attempt to dox and then intimidate me for asking.

RobL - let the games begin

Given that RobL himself has argued that the document he claims gives him legal ownership of the land also isn’t a legal agreement, It would be wise for Decentraland or the DCL DAO to get a head of what appears to be a legal, and potential liability, nightmare.

Appendix B - License Agreement

Discord - Primary means of communication

When RobL was asked about his effort to contact contributors, he chose to reply with a meme mocking the askers mental health

Despite RobL’s desire to rewrite history, he did in fact present District X Startup Plan as a binding agreement. One he indicated he would be signing.

District X leadership needs to demonstrate they’ve made good faith efforts on the agreement they set forth.

Without presenting the Revshare updates in Discord with the holders, they are in violation of the agreement they put forward.

Discord - Primary means of communication

what an irony ) RobL voted using his own (pardon) our own 4M VP
Great RobL! acted on conscience and definetly like a man! My appreciations! :clap:


Join DAO dedicated channel to this, we need more evidences and your story can help fight scam.



@HPrivakos is this possible? Can the DAO force the transfer of the rights of this land to the contributors? Does the DAO have the legal right to interfere in these conflicts? I would be ok with giving District X community to plead their case,

  1. If this is what the majority of contributors want.
  2. If it’s actually possible for the DAO to have jurisdiction over something like this.

HP has confirmed it is possible. He also believes anyone who would suggest it is “a threat to DCL”
I would like to add the evidence of RobL being willing to sell the entire District… which is certainly not in line with Districts’ promises.

I don’t think that Rob has provided a reasonable explanation to why District X is no longer being actively developed, and has not met its original goals as stated - furthermore, he’s previously attempted to sell the lands and take the profit for his own LLC with complete disregard for original owners and the commitment he signed up for.

We cannot allow users who contributed land to be taken advantage of when they have no means to resolve this issue themselves other than the DCL foundation stepping in and either updating land contracts to return these, or by locking the land and re-appropriating it so that Rob cannot sell and benefit from others’ assets.

Furthermore, the fact that Rob would vote ‘yes’ on this with stolen user VP without consulting the community of District X, nor even providing a reasonable explanation to land providers is a huge red flag - acting as a dictator of the assets you’ve been trusted to custodian and not acting in the land providers/district X’s best interests is a direct conflict and breach of the original agreement that was signed.

DCL Districts have an incredibly important role, and directors of those districts not upholding their commitments affects all of us, as we need these districts to be actively developed to bring in users and create overworld attractions.

Right now, according to Rob himself, the original contract is void and does not give users the rights to the land, what he fails to understand is that even if the contract is void, the rights fall to the original owners - the users who bought and provided the land.

It does not matter which way we slice this, it’s a clear misappropriation of the responsibility and value that was given.

We don’t need to argue on whether Rob own’s these assets, because he doesn’t, and if the district is not being actively developed as described - the land should be returned.

What we do need to decide, is how are we to return these to the original owners, or what can we do to mitigate the damage?

  • Should we lock this land and use it as public space for future grant proposals?
  • Temporarily update land contract to revert these to rightful owners (and make a new district contract that enables reversion rights if district owners do not hold up their end of commitment so that this doesn’t happen again?)
  • Spend DAO funds to go after Rob’s LLC w/ legal action? (I’d rather avoid this, but speaking with a lawyer and based on the paperwork provided so far, we have a pretty clear cut case if need be).

Districts are a clear need in DCL, we need these spaces that are inherently themed and there needs to be some overarching direction on their development - so it’s clear we need to come up with a solution here that can achieve this in a better way, whether its a wrapping contract like Aetheria uses, or just giving district owners locked deployment rights instead of ownership, we should be able to implement a better solution than simply giving away millions in land to people who may abuse it.

It is fine to not succeed at creating a vibrant district, that’s hard. What’s unacceptable is taking hostage of those assets after giving up on the vision that others are still working towards, and then trying to sell those assets for personal gain.


Scammer @RobL with 4 million voting power scammed from DistrictX contributors votes “No” though he promised not to use DistrictX voting power.

@RobL I don’t want you to miss this detail.

I would like to add since you threatened a defamation lawsuit, that’s not gonna work either.

Possible after updating the land smartcontract, which would be costly, take a lot of time (due to audits mainly, for both time and cost).
I stand by what I said about creating a dangerous precedent.

@MorrisMustang you were quite active in the proposal about recovering lost lands, want to share your opinion about this one?


I’m in full agreement that taking and returning land to rightful owners by force is a tricky situation, not just for dev resources but on principal too, if we set this precedence we’d likely be inundated by stolen NFT requests, and a centralized entity having the ability to move land is not great.

However this doesn’t change the fact our district architecture is flawed - the fact that any district director could lose/steal land is of large concern and not one we should simply forget about.

If performing a one time upgrade to move these lands to a wrapper multi-sig that enables us to have directors of districts without just sending them millions in NFTs, it’s likely a worthwhile discussion to have.

Unfortunately no easy solutions here - even locking the land would be a pain to have to deal with the ‘dead’ land NFTs, but I think this highlights why we need District architecture to resolve this in the future as the foundation won’t always be able to step in - we might as well bite the bullet now and solve the issue while it’s still possible, as much of a pain as it might be.

1 Like

I know that @RobL deleting DistricX’s discord isn’t an omission of guilt.

But it sure as fuck feels like he’s losing the game he was excited to start playing.

RobL - let the games begin

I think in this situation not doing anything also sets a dangerous precedent. Imagine other districts looking at this and thinking “Wow, there were no repercussions for stealing and abusing thousands of parcels and millions of VP. We could just do that too.”

Something needs to be done here. Is it possible to freeze this account from voting or selling the land as this gets sorted? Is it possible for the DAO to take legal action against their LLC to move things along? Anything to put pressure on this single bad actor and show that DCL won’t stand for this kind of abuse would be a positive step forward in my opinion.

1 Like

Having permission to ban someone from voting would be very dangerous.
There is no way to prevent someone from transferring or selling lands.
The DAO has no legal entity so it cannot start a legal action, it’s also not it’s role.

There should be repercussion if a district lead does something not correct, but it should be legal, not from the DAO or banning someone from voting or blocking lands transfers.


Thanks for the response.

Is this something the DCL Foundation Legal Team can help with? It seems like that would be the ideal group to get involved and begin carrying things forward. How can this be escalated?

1 Like

It should be noted that any answer provided to “is it possible” that is a “No” really means, “not with the existing code, but could be implemented if the community decided it was important enough”

I’m not saying the solution you asked about is good, just that “no” isn’t entirely accurate

Sure, but I agree that right now we should be not spending a lot of time and money on developing implementing a new feature to ban 1 person. And the feature will probably end up being abused anyway.

I think the thing to focus on is the fact that this could have real legal implications for the person holding the district hostage. And that the foundation has a full legal team that is very well-versed in this space. And that preventing the exploitation of thousands of community parcels and millions of community VP should not be tolerated.

I expect I will continue to research additional information for a more thorough write up of the entire situation.

1 Like