[DAO:d89168b] Zombieland Problem - Could we rent out empty/unused land automatically?

by 0xb3696116df8b93cb550c383539004a54b6580d22

Lets set up a smart contract, similar to the Over the Reality Plattform. Here the description and link:


The whole system is conceived to maximize OVRLand availability, limit monopoly risks, and solve the “Lost Keys/Zombie Land” problem while rewarding OVRLand owners.

Creating smart leases for virtual lands presents some significant challenges. In particular, there are two potentially competing interests to compose:

Property rights: the owner has to be free to do whatever he wants with its OVRLands
Collective/platform interests: maximizing the availability of a scarce resource, the OVRLands.
OVRLands owners should be free to set the rental price they deem correct for their OVRLand, even though this could lead to very high rental prices.
In the medium term, market forces are expected to solve the pricing problem by aligning rental supply and demand. But what if the owner of the OVRLand sets a very high price and just forgets the OVRLand, or loses control of its private keys? The OVRLand would de-facto become unavailable.

Finally, there is the “Lost Keys/Zombie Land” problem. What happens if the owner of an OVRLand loses the keys to its wallet or dies? Would that OVRLand be unavailable forever?

To overcome these challenges, we made all of the OVRLand rentable by default. The base price is ~3$ (in OVR) for 1 month period – on the next version of the SC, the base price will vary according to the number of minted neighboring OVRLands -. The OVRLand owner will have a 3-days window to decline the offer. He can also request a different price and a different renting period (multiples of 30 days). The OVRLand owner will be notified by e-mail and on the marketplace messaging board of the rental request. If the OVERLand owner does not respond within 3 days, his OVRLand will be rented for 1 month, and he will receive the basic rental rate.

With this system, the active owner of OVRLand can set the price he prefers for the rental of its OVRLand. But, even if the owner is not active, the OVRLand will generate a basic income for the owner and remain available to publishers.
Furthermore, this system solves the “LostKeys/Zombie Land” problem since the OVRLand is always available for a 1-month rental period.

An OVRLand owner will be able to modify his basic rental request, both in terms of value and time. For example, he can set the minimum monthly price to 50 $, the minimum renting period to 3 months, and the maximum to 6 months.
Moreover, he could make the OVRLand virtually unavailable by setting a very high monthly rent request.
This Custom Request will be valid for 3 months (avoiding the “Lost Keys/Zombie Land” problem). It will have a small cost – ~0.50$ in OVR – to disincentivize monopoly behaviors on large quantities of OVRLands.

This is just the first version of OVRLand Renting Smart Contracts. The described rules are our best estimate of an optimal OVRLand rental management policy. However, we believe that the final decision on how to manage OVRLand smart contracts at best should be made by the OVRLand owner community.
Such decisions will be handled by a DAO, which will be published on the Polygon blockchain. Meanwhile, we invite interested parties to join Discord to discuss renting policy optimization.

  • yes - lets do it
  • no - we have a better idea
  • Invalid question/options

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

Is that a proposal for Decentraland or an ads for OVRLand?

Definitely not an ad! I really like the idea and would like to also implement it for Decentraland. How else are we going to tackle this problem?

i think this is an interesting idea - but is it possible? @HPrivakos maybe you can answer that - is it something that could be implemented in the new rental contracts? or it would need to be updated on the land/estate contracts (and not sure that can be done)

Isn’t this just another rental proposal? The DAO already had one before, and there is even one on-going right now. Why push this through governance, if it’s going to be through a third party, and not DCL itself?

I don’t think we need more landlords in the metaverse, we’ll just run into the same issues as IRL eventually IMO.

1 Like

It could likely be added as an exception on the catalysts.

I do not think it should be done though, my lands stays my lands and my property, with my own content (empty if I choose so), even if I don’t use it.

This sounds like a commercialized version of the idea that was spitballed with Toonpunk on one of the early canessa/sinful spaces. tl;dr: Land owners who have been idle with empty parcels keep their property, but squatters are allowed to build on it after a certain amount of inactivity. If/when the land owner comes in, they can then sweep out the squatters with minimal fuss. If the landowner never returns (Because they lost access to their wallet, for example), then at least the land can be productively used.

The above is probably an unworkable idea, but likely more prone to fun than this proposal.

1 Like

I really like this idea actually! It would solve the dead/unused Land issue while at the same time allowing new/poor users to experiment with building in DCL before committing to buying Land.

Is it possible to set Land operator rights to public instead of delegating to a specific wallet? So anyone can jump onto a parcel and build or overwrite content on Land? I think that functionality would be a good first step if we wanted to start testing out ideas like this.

From there we could set up a system that Land owners could opt into, where if not active for X time, Land operator rights automatically reverts to public until reclaimed I don’t think this should be a rental thing though. We already have a handful of rental markets for that. Public vs. private or unclaimed vs. claimed operator rights is VERY interesting to me though.

Zombieland Problem - Could we rent out empty/unused land automatically?

This proposal is now in status: REJECTED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes - lets do it 1% 22 VP (14 votes)
  • No - we have a better idea 9% 223,765 VP (5 votes)
  • Invalid question/options 90% 2,051,358 VP (36 votes)