[DAO:d9a07be] Should we create the Decentraland DAO Land Program (DDLP)?

Governance
1

by 0x1e09a216b70d46229f3fe86d3ad2e47ae01f7989 (Tobik#7989)

Introduction

On May 9, 2023, at 00:45, a proposal was voted on to purchase land in Decentraland. As a result, the Decentraland DAO acquired over 80 plots of land, including both individual parcels and larger estates. These plots are currently held in the DAO’s wallet.

The proposed Decentraland DAO Land Program (DDLP) aims to facilitate content creation on the platform. This new program would allow DAO Committee members (or other members appointed by the DAO Committee) to delegate these plots (excluding roads) for free to projects or members with compelling initiatives to deploy.

Additionally, the program empowers the DAO Committee to appoint or remove other members to review, analyze, and make decisions on proposals submitted by those seeking land delegation.

Procedure

To be eligible for land delegation, community members must complete a form explaining why they need the land, how long they require it, how many plots are necessary for their project, and other relevant details. The DAO Committee (or the appointed members, if applicable) can then accept, decline, or request modifications to the proposal.

Criteria

For a project to be accepted, the use of the land must meet specific criteria and parameters:

Content Creation: The land must be used for creating genuine content rather than primarily displaying banners or advertisements.
Prohibited Content: The project must not use the land for pornographic or explicit sexual content.
Land Rental: The project is not allowed to rent the land to other members, except when renting is part of a game or experience.
Prohibited Activities: The project must not promote discriminatory or illegal activities.

Cancellation

The Decentraland DAO Committee or their appointed members reserve the right to terminate access to the land at any time if any of the following conditions are met:

Irrelevance: The project has shifted focus to something unrelated to its original proposal without consulting and getting approval.
Non-compliance: The project is not adhering to the established criteria.
Community Behavior: The creators are engaging in or promoting toxic behavior within the community by not following the code of ethics.
Lack of Engagement: If the project is not attracting any users and the land is needed for more relevant projects, the delegated member will receive a two-week grace period as notification before access is revoked.
Project Duration Expiration: The allocated time for the project has ended, and the land is needed for new delegations.

FAQ

Q: Why will the DAO Committee be doing this and not a INSERT NEW CORE UNIT HERE?
A: Mostly because we can do it ourselves, and it doesn’t cost any additional money to the DAO. However, if we think it would be better to appoint volunteer members, we will do so with the best of intentions.

Q: Does this include roads?
A: No.

Q: I don’t like X specific thing of the program. What can I do?
A: Feel free to leave your comments on what you would like to be different.

  • Yes
  • No
  • Invalid question/options

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

2

Also: thanks to @Canessa, @SinfulMeatStick and @Existential14 for allowing the discussion of this idea to exist on their Twitter spaces!

3

I voted ‘no’ because I don’t trust the DAO committee, and this is the reason I don’t want them to operate the parcels. Lands must be delegated (rented for free) after a DAO proposal.

1 Like
4

Hey. Please read the proposal. The DAO Committee won’t be operathing the land after it gets delegated.

Also, what do you mean with not trusting? The DAO Committee is the only one who can delegate the land from a technical point of view.

Where is the risk? You vote ‘no’ and who is going to do this then?

1 Like
5

To be more clear. You have a project that needs land to build. Come here, put a proposal + roadmap of the project you gonna use the land with. Then the DAO votes, if this pass - the comitee is free to delegate operator rights.

6

I get it but that is extremely slow (poll, draft and governance) and most people just want to deploy and not write entire proposals.

This is a faster approach for generating content. Also, the idea of people being able to get land delegated for free by filling a form seems easier than doing a DAO proposal.

Why not giving it a shot?

1 Like
7

Like I said, I don’t trust the committee. That’s why I want to see proposals instead of three multi-sigs holders doing whatever they want.

1 Like
8

But it is not what we want: indeed, I’m doing a DAO proposal and following the protocol. If this doesn’t pass, we are not allowed to do such thing. Isn’t that enough to prove that we are doing things right?

Also, why not trying and if you feel that is bad, you later submit another proposal to block this program?

Again, I don’t see the risk of allowing this but I do see a risk on not doing anything and leaving the things as they are. You have to separate your personal feelings with the members with what is the best for the DAO.

Doing this is better than not doing anything! If not, our assets will be getting dust when we could give the opportunity to the community.

1 Like
9

But it is not what we want: indeed, I’m doing a DAO proposal and following the protocol. If this doesn’t pass, we are not allowed to do such thing. Isn’t that enough to prove that we are doing things right?

I want to see proposal for every single land. This way we will know and decide what happens later and insure that there will be no excuses, abandoned buildings, pink dil*os, political propaganda, etc.

Also, why not trying and if you feel that is bad, you later submit another proposal to block this program?

I’m tired, that’s why.

Again, I don’t see the risk of allowing this but I do see a risk on not doing anything and leaving the things as they are. You have to separate your personal feelings with the members with what is the best for the DAO.

  1. I hope to see more people leaving a comment on this thread, so we can ‘find’ a solution that will change my mind.
  2. No personal feelings.

Doing this is better than not doing anything! If not, our assets will be getting dust when we could give the opportunity to the community.

Let the community decide.

1 Like
10

There will be no excuses. Please review the criteria for what is allowed and what is not.
Those who do not comply will not gain access.

Unfortunately, most people will not use the DAO to request access to such land, as it is not deemed worthwhile.

However, this program enables us to effectively market the concept of “free land access.”

While I respect your right to express disagreement, I find your arguments weak and lacking solidity.

Anyways, thank you for commenting and reading.

Best regards,
Tobik

11

My only argument is I have no trust in the committee :slight_smile:

I want to see a mechanism where the DAO members have control over what you and your friends can do. When and how you can give and take operator rights.

Thank you for your politically correct answer. I appreciate it.

2 Likes
12

I do feel we need to do something with the land. I also guess I must have misunderstood exactly what you meant when we talked about allowing the community to use the land purchased. It most definitely should be made available in some way but from what I understood in the past when the DAO started buying land, is in some cases it would be offered to grantees that required land to build instead of the requests that included purchasing land with DAO funds. 2nd it would be made available to the community if someone wanted to request the use of DAO lands and that they would go through the proposal method. It’s not necessarily anything to do with trust however, this is not how things work in a DAO and it would set a precendent for possibly other things. What, I cant say. Its all an experiment. I understand quicker etc, but the land belongs to community and they should decide who gets to use their land.
Thank you.

1 Like
13

“I get it but that is extremely slow (poll, draft and governance) and most people just want to deploy and not write entire proposals.”

That’s the path that everyone has to take if they want to have a project made possible through the DAO.

1 Like
14

Hey, @JeremyBrooks, thanks for your comment. Here is my response:

Yes, that’s the current path, and no one is doing it. Why? Because no one wants to go through that.

The idea that the DAO cannot rely on people for some processes only makes everything more limited. In fact, this DAO uses the opinions of individuals when it comes to things such as the pause or revocation of grants. Why? Because if people had to follow the classic DAO process, it would take an eternity to stop a fraudulent grant.

A DAO can have centralized processes that have been previously voted in a decentralized way, and this DAO already has some of those processes.

Anyway, thanks for reading and giving your opinion.

Regards,
Tobik

15

Hey.

As far as I know, the grants program cannot give the LAND the DAO owns. The only way you have is to go through a DAO proposal (which involves three steps and a lot of VP that most people cannot get). Maybe we could add to the proposal a priority for those who have a grant?

Then, I’m not too sure where the ‘bad precedent’ will be as this is being voted on by the community in the first place.

Indeed, this proposal facilitates new developers or members who do not have access to VP to start creating.

Regards,
Tobik

16

Under “Procedure” it states that you’re filling out a form, but later in the paragraph it refers to it as a proposal. Is it a form or a proposal?

Respectfully, I vote no so that we keep the current decentralized system in place. It’s a little confusing to me that we’d want to switch to a centralized method for this.

1 Like
17

Hello. Thanks for your comment.

It’s a form where you include the proposal along with other details.

I would also like to add that the current program does not invalidate the use of the DAO. It just makes it faster. With the current system, no one is asking for land, and access to the VP is limited to a select few.

Regards,
Tobik

18

I respect this as a good start to the discussion of making use of DAO lands. I don’t mind trusting the committee to manage the process for the sake of efficiency and better execution. My only concern is that there is too much ambiguity in the requirements. For example, there should be predetermined time intervals/review periods for the land to be delegated, 3, 6, 12 months, rather than the committee suddenly deciding that there are more relevant projects and give a 2 week notice. (unless the project breaks a more obvious rule) Land rental is another area of concern “except when renting is part of a game or experience”… this is too broad… the circumstances under which a project would be allowed to rent the land should be very specific and limited. We should also know where the funds go. Lastly, accountability… the proposal should include monthly or quarterly reporting requirements from the committee to the community and what the reports will include, such as what projects applied and which were selected, metrics or other helpful data for iterating the land delegation program, feedback from the community, etc. Thanks for putting this forward Tobik… I think it’s a good idea.

1 Like
19

We can barely get grantees POI stars, are we really going to nitpick this because we want to create more immovable barriers and red tape for creators? This land is doing absolutely nothing right now.

We should test this theory that this is actually doable. I am happy to submit a wonderful proposal to build a community owned virtual venue and conference center controllable through VLM on DAO land…if you all want to watch it rot on the vine. Nobody is using the land so it should be no problem to obtain it for some temporary use, right? But I think we all know how it will go with the DAO in its current state.

2 Likes
20

Hello, @CheddarQueso. Thank you for your comments; I find them really valuable. This is actually the type of debate we need :100:

I think you make a great point here, and I’m happy to modify the way the periods work. The idea of having a review time in the middle seems better for the user who gets delegated. I will implement these changes in the next one.

Regarding the renting part, yes, I should find a better way to explain it. I was mostly referring to scenarios where a game charges a subscription for space (i.e., a hotel room). Do you have an idea of how I can word this in the next writing to be more clear? Maybe: “Land rental: the project cannot allow users to rent the land (or space on it) for money unless this is a feature/monetization system part of genuine content”?

And yeah, will also be adding the reporting thing.

Thanks a lot, this really helps,
Tobik