[DAO:def2ea3] Should we allow deploying content on abandoned LAND preserving owner rights?

[JasonX]

I am very disappointed by the recent decisions made by the DAO.

Deploying content on users’ empty parcels is one of the worst ideas I’ve heard in a long time. I fail to see any benefit to this approach, and I strongly believe the time and resources spent on it will not be justified by any meaningful increase in user acquisition or engagement.

What happened to innovation and excitement?

Why not explore more creative ways to make Decentraland more appealing such as introducing underground cities, floating islands, or issuing unlimited land outside the Genesis City map that’s free for all new users? These ideas would inspire imagination and growth, not forceful intervention on existing parcels.

To me, it seems like this initiative is simply creating unnecessary work because there’s no clear direction or plan. 18 months may sound like a long time, but it really isn’t & if this endeavor fails to make a real impact, the consequences could be irreversible.

Please reconsider your options & focus on ideas that empower the community and encourage real innovation.

We spent $14M so far and ended up with 44 users & I’d hate to see this number reduce to 4 users in 18 months with further $6.1M spent.

If we need to hire external help such as a growth analyst, data analyst, marketing strategist, or any other necessary role please do so before making any critical decisions, because the current state of affairs is extremely concerning.

A council member said that more content is great for Decentraland, without offering any further explanation. It seemed like he felt obligated to comment just to justify his $1,000 monthly salary.

@lastraum’s catalyst server data provides valuable insight yet still doesn’t solve any problems. At this stage players main concern isn’t ownership rights but rather minimal dau

What incentives can we give/supply (besides monetary) to attract new users?

Why can’t we open up decentraland to the rest of the world? get people to signup on free email addresses on dcl.gg along with web2 domain name holders and issue them free worlds or free island lands.

Somehow make the wearable minting process free and allow anyone, everyone to create design & publish wearables. Get rid of the curation committee and deploy ai to do 5 persons job for $50 a month

Get rid of the 3 person DAO committee and assign this role to council members on a rotating shift basis since both teams aren’t really doing anything anyhow. At least we save a few thousand dollars every month.

@ginoct Godot android client is not going to bring in any new users & until we have a live (working) product it’s pointless talking about it rn.

We can have many various protocols/clients/engines however if the user acquisition & user engagement isn’t there we will only be beating a dead horse.

You can put feathers on a horse but that doesn’t make him a chicken

[ginoct]

I think the arguments presented against the current form for this idea are solid. Personally, I believe we could start experimenting with what we currently have (DAO-owned and Foundation-owned land maybe).

That said, I’d still like to revisit this idea in the medium term with a narrower scope: only targeting LAND that has never had content deployed. I still believe that this isn’t about “occupying” someone’s property. Ownership remains fully intact. The moment a LAND owner wants to deploy content, whatever is there would vanish — it’s like opening the doors of your plot and instantly restoring it to the state you left it.

This should be about preserving Decentraland’s uniqueness (a traversable virtual world) and making Genesis City feel alive.

@JasonX Agree with your point, user acquisition and engagement are the only metrics we should be taking into account (That’s why I believe expanding the options to access DCL is key)

[dao]

Should we allow deploying content on abandoned LAND preserving owner rights?

This proposal is now in status: FINISHED.

Voting Results:

• Yes, i’d like to allow fresh content to be deployed on “abandoned” lands 32% 1,432,209 VP (27 votes)
• No, i don’t think this is a good idea. 67% 2,968,118 VP (43 votes)
• Invalid question/options 1% 20,927 VP (3 votes)

[esteban]

Dear all,

Here are my ideas about this subject:

1. Empty parcels make the experience of exploring Decentraland worse
2. It’s definitely a contributor to the problems of the platform as a whole.
3. Whatever ailment we propose to fix the solution must not alter the ownership model, or in other words, asset seizure is not an option
4. LAND speculators that never deployed to their land would favor this. If anything, it is free labor for them, raising the value of the platform as a whole or gifting attention to your particular land, that might have been “squatted” by some popular artist/creator.
5. I think this is not comparable with the previous “ping” system that was proposed in the past. This proposal doesn’t erode “ownership” in any way. The smart contract doesn’t change. Ownership remains the same.
6. Regarding content that “goes against your values”: I think this can be seen as a “non-onerous rental agreement with the possibility of immediate eviction”. It’s the current tenant’s responsibility, not yours.
7. We could have a very simple “opt-out”: for example, putting {"permanentDeployment": true} on your scene.json and this will never affect you again.
8. “Opt-in” would be the same as doing nothing on this regard. People that lost their private keys can’t give opt-in consensus.

I see this proposal as super low-risk, and I believe it’s a shame that it didn’t pass.

@lastraum

This is a hard fork moment for the platform.

I believe this is quite an overstatement.

@lastraum

In terms of math, all land owners currently control the 2/2 ways content can make it to their land. This proposal would introduce a 3rd method, bringing actual land nft ownership rights down to 2/3, which is 66%

This argument doesn’t hold water. There are multiple “rights” that encompass “ownership rights”: possession, use, transfer, enjoyment, etc… this only changes “use”, and:

• only if you haven’t used it for a long time (maybe we can decide a time of like 5 years?)
• only if you haven’t opted out
• you have an immediate way of evicting them

@Canessa

This proposal DOES NOT GUARANTEE QUALITY CONTENT. In my opinion, we don’t have an issue of not enough land, we have an issue of not enough imagination.

I agree with this, but I’d still vote for this. I rather prefer to let them try and build this rather than curtail their efforts. I think we all want a pretty similar future for Decentraland, and I don’t think this proposal hurts (for the reasons explained above).

@Murpheus

I often thought that when I died(I’m only 40 but thinking ahead), a piece of me would live on forever. In DCL, on the blockchain, and my creation, on my digital land, would be there for generations. I WAS HERE.

"permanentDeployment": true would allow for this use case

@lastraum

• yes i have been pushing for portable experiences for 3 years (they are not supported by the new client). this is a great idea, a massive idea - preserves original LAND nft ownership while creating new ways for immersive content

Super agree, I 100% think there are a lot of missed opportunities there.

@lastraum

We can ask hypotheticals all day long where this proposed scenario would not fly. If you buy land in real life and don’t do anything with it for a year, are you ok with the local government or community building on your land while you’re “gone”?

In real life, allodial titles like what we have don’t exist (except in some very weird cases). Also, the cost of fixing “what they did while you were gone” is near 0 joules – deployments are easy. So I don’t think we have a valid comparison. Right now, LAND is an allodial title. And this proposal doesn’t change that.

---

TL;DR: Shame this didn’t pass. IMHO doesn’t hurt any rights, and I’d rather let the client developers explore what to do about this than NIMBY-carp the proposal.

[lastraum]

@esteban

This argument doesn’t hold water. There are multiple “rights” that encompass “ownership rights”: possession, use, transfer, enjoyment, etc… this only changes “use”, and:

• only if you haven’t used it for a long time (maybe we can decide a time of like 5 years?)
• only if you haven’t opted out
• you have an immediate way of evicting them

In your own words, you use change which is an alteration of current rights, is it not?. It doesn’t matter the category of right, it’s a change in the rights of the nft owner without their consent.

I guess that’s the main question to ask going forward.

• What are the rights of a LAND nft owner?
• Does DCL need to provide language around what exactly you get when you purchase a LAND nft, and that it’s ownership rights (all types) are subject to change at the discretion of the DAO and/or some future entity?

[jar0d]

What if we just make a 2nd City?

Everyone can keep there Gen Plaza land as it is, but we start Sequel City and all active builders can have an estate and we can give foundation/dao more control over how we populate it

[JasonX]

I must say, this is a brilliant idea. Having a second city as islands surrounding the Genesis City has always been part of my long term vision.

[jar0d]

I think it should be more like the two continents of WoW where you take a zeppelin to it

[ALPHAALVES]

if this is a rental agreement then, empower the owners of the LAND & add a rental fee for those who have opted in to have users publish scenes on their LAND..

The owner can choose to keep $0 or an $X amount that can be set before they opt in..

I could care less if an artist/creator used my LAND at one point, now having an artist or brand rent my LAND for their activations sounds interesting.

Create a bridge in the beginning of the client that allows people to choose between DCLWorlds or Genesis City and let this idea exist only in DCLWorlds and i would vote yes for a proposal like this. If this were to exist in G.C. it should be with a condition of more than 2 years before using “empty” parcels without legal consent.