[DAO:c7e2805] Remove the location -115,-26 from the Points of Interest

by 0x0749d1abb5ca9128432b612644c0ea1e9c6cc9af (ALPHAANGELS)

MetaPals NFT Club

Should the scene located at -115,-26 be removed from the Point of Interest list?


I would like POIs that are not active or hosting at least one event a month to be removed.

A lot of Points Of Interest have been earned by the promise they would be giving back to the community.

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

I am not sure its good idea.

1 Like

Are they hosting events for the community? Do people visit this location? Does the owner of this parcel plan to host any events in the near future?

Good questions but POI is pretty fresh and they have active twitter. I agree though there are some abandoned POIs but this still doesn’t look for me dead yet ))


1 Like

The original POI was passed with 2 very large vp holders as the majority voters on the project, including the person submitting the proposal voting on their own POI star with multiple accounts adding up to 228K vp. I’d like to see POI’s assigned to people who don’t vote on their own POI. For that I’m going to vote yes, and if it is truly something the community wants to support, they can reapply, just like the Sugar Club had to do.

Original proposal: Add the location -115,-26 to the Points of Interest


Saw some votings where creators vote for their own POI, Dice Masters for example: https://governance.decentraland.org/proposal/?id=ec5b1b10-225d-11ed-b4a9-178eb7bc02f5

Dont like double standards. :cold_face:

This is a very good step for the community to start ‘enforcing’ the ideals we’d like enshrined in our code of ethics.

Grants are controversial, as they can get messy. POIs on the other hand are a very good place to start. I would recommend we go through a number of POIs, assess who voted on their own POIs, and reset the playing field.

@web3nit this is a really good example. I love Dice Masters, and would happily vote on their POI. Removing POIs that were self-voted will just let us reset the playing field, and ‘rebuild’ the list of POIs based on the community-approved attitude we’re trying to promote. Somewhat of a proactive, productive purge?

We need this move before we start talking about evolving POIs into Landmarks.


Thank you @Canessa for pointing this out!

For my opinion we can start with:

  • Finding really “dead” POIs and holding voting to revoke them. For example POIs where there are no community news, abandoned smm pages with no activity at all.

  • Creating voting code of ethics where we will write all community thoughts including self-voting, voting for money etc. Besides POI, I saw some self-voted governance proposals.

  • Start research to make new POI system with clear requirements, auto revoking based on some activity KPIs (events, etc), maybe some “activity” warning for owner to revise their DCL strategy and become more responsible. I guess it will be better than just to make voting to revoke POIs because of somethings in the past.

Thanks all for your thoughts. Respect for each other and community discussions will give us the key to solution. :handshake:


Thank you for sharing! I agree.

1 Like

The space was nice once I could find my way in, but it seems “unattended to” if that makes any sense? My vote is yes because I need a warm place when I think of a POI location.

Really good points web3nit… I do feel like we shouldn’t be removing POI’s without telling the owners first, but if there are no expectations of POI’s to begin with, how can we expect owners to adhere to them… so we need to decide as a community what you stated, clear guidelines to move forward with. I’d hate to be an owner and have some life-crisis, only to return to DCL to find that my POI was removed. Thanks for all these good points to consider!

1 Like

Remove the location -115,-26 from the Points of Interest

This proposal is now in status: PASSED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes 79% 1,412,556 VP (38 votes)
  • No 21% 378,564 VP (9 votes)

Remove the location -115,-26 from the Points of Interest

This proposal has been ENACTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xfe91c0c482e09600f2d1dbca10fd705bc6de60bc)