[DAO: QmYbA6T] Split LAND and MANA Voting power into 50% each, same weight

by 0x598f8af1565003ae7456dac280a18ee826df7a2c (pablo)

Right now LAND is valued with 1000VP , which compared with LAND sales, the proportion is quite distant to the voting power of MANA.

The proposed idea is to implement voting system where we get the vote percentage separately and sum and divide so that MANA and LAND have both the same voting power.

For example, imagine following votes:

  • LAND: yes 40% no 60%
  • MANA: yes 50% no 50%
  • Result: yes (40+50)/2=45% no (60+50)/2=55%

Is MANA more important than LAND for the wellbeing of the project?

  • YES
  • NO
  • I like the proposal but not the 50%, LAND should have more weight
  • I like the proposal but not the 50%, MANA should have more weight

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

Currently the LAND has 2000 VP and the cheapest land on the market is at 4500 MANA.

Giving LAND 50% of the weight would put the LANDs total VP at 2.2B VP (as there is 2.2B MANA) which would put each LAND at over 23,000 VP.

I don’t think the LAND VP is that far off from the current marketplace price, LAND owners are also more active in the community and so the DAO than the MANA holders so in the end the LAND owners already have a very big part of the DAO voting power

1 Like

An idea I’d like to see considered and discuissed is that of a “bicameral” voting process.
It would work something like this (if it were possible to implement)
For a change / proposal to pass it must get >50% of MANA that is voted AND >50% of LAND that is voted.
In other words it must make sense from both perspectives, and eliminates the idea of one perspective “ganging up” on the other.
Many legislatures have taken a similar approach to dealing with two significantly different voting perspectives.


I like Carls idea a lot!

1 Like

>50% of what? Total supply?
That would require 800M MANA to be used and 45000 LANDs, even 1% of MANA may be too much (DG already vote with 1% of the LANDs, but 5% of LANDs is already huge)

The balance may not be an issue now but it could be a possible “attack vector” in future if the ratio of land vp to mana vp is so far off. What happens when a few mana “whales” collude to get their proposal through which somewhat contests to land holders. (if say they were to attempt to rush it through)

I think land holders have demonstrated their commitment to the metaverse and there should be a greater push/ incentive to hold and develop land in a good quality way.

I also had the “rough idea” of a proposal to have more hot zones of land having more voting power; closer to (A) genesis plaza (B) roads (C) districts.

Furthermore - possibly something much later down the road could be -
The calculation of the price paid on first day of auction back in 2017 would give a ratio of voting power, so massive plots out in the goonies (which were bought for only 1k mana at auction) should not have near as much voting power as those in high end locations purchased for 20k - 100k and over in mana (but i understand this could be quite messy to implement)

Another idea which just “dawned on me” imagine (much much later down the road) there could be a committee to assess land and asset build value and authenticity and from this would allocate a certain agreed upon vp amount for all those attributes.

I am always open to opinion and knowledge, these are all just theories/ hypothesis/ creative thinking at the end of the day

Yeah I think many of these voting proposals are far too simplistic. But it’s good that there are more discussions now.

I think something along these lines could be considered: a bicarmeral system with one house based on size of holdings (reality is they have huge stake in DCL and it should be reflected somehow in governance), and with another house based on smaller communities.

Or, to compare with the real world, a house of lords and house of commons. The former can be decided based on objective criteria on-chain, while the latter can be based on popular vote (perhaps using quadratic voting as suggested in another thread).

I also think these members should be paid for the work. Eventually the governance work could become a full-time job.

1 Like

HP, were you responding to my bicameral idea with your >50% question
If so, note that i said
“>50% of MANA that is voted AND >50% of LAND that is voted.”
(not of the total supply)

1 Like

The idea looks really interesting.
What I’m worried about MANA VP, is for example, exchange addresses like binance, eToro, etc. voting. They can even vote on something to make price go down if that is what they benefit from, the possibility could be remote but is open, and if at so me point vote delegation is approved, even easier for them.

Saying the top mana holders are not as involved as land owners - but only when it is important enough for them to get involved

Land seems a lot more decentralised than mana, also as I just learned 51% of the MANA supply is owned by 6 wallets, im sure mana whales have no problem mobilising when it suits, just like they did for the top 2 winners of the community wearables contest in 2020 vote on the last day getting millions of vp to vote in favour of the asian wearables im sure they were mana strong voters and not land at all. I think the balance is way out and land is massively under appreciated

This is a fascinating idea. My only comment is that in a bicameral system there is a division and separation of powers in order to a) prevent total gridlock of the political system and b) prevent consolidation of power and factionalism and c) to protect specific interests, e.g. upper and lower houses. In the case of Decentraland there is a mutual relationship between building, developing, creating and buying/selling, flipping, and trading MANA. Our economy and future is tied to both, however I would lean toward having the landed interests make up an upper house (Land) and the business comprising the lower (Mana). This model would somewhat mirror the emergence of the British Parliament (minus the Royal sovereign) with the upper-house of “Lords” and lower house of “Commons.” Although these distinctions are in and of themselves problematic, and I am not necessarily in favor of simply repackaging the established political hierarchies of power from the current/old systems and porting them into this one. However, this is a model of bicameralism that we can look to for creating a specific division of powers based on landed landed vs. mercantile interests.

@CarlFravel if you ever consider moving forward with mapping out a proposal or idea on this, I would love to contribute. I am PhD Candidate in Future Studies/Political Science


I recently learned that the 6 wallets are owned by exchanges and vesting contracts, so it is not nearly as alarming as led on in the other dao vote. I still think the mana to land vp is far out of balance

why is it not alarming? an exchange wallet can still vote.
contracts are less alarming because its possible that it cannot vote, but exchange wallet can.

1 Like

I have LAND but don’t vote because it’s not worth anything compared to MANA…

Can’t we just take an average price of LAND purchases over the history of the game?
Anything sold on the marketplace?
Removing anything that has been sold under 1000 MANA?

If the average price is fair then people can’t really complain…

6 accounts !== 6 people, please read my response here: [DAO: QmTHuKN] How many people knew that 51% of the MANA supply is owned by 6 wallets? - #3 by sabe

I think we should analyze the participation of MANA and LAND voters, before drawing numbers in the air.

Originally the governance system was MANA only, the community raised their concern about not giving LAND owners a voice, so a poll was put out and the outcome was to give 2000 VP to the LAND owners. This is an iterative process, but not as straight forward as just taking the market price, considering the supply and circulation and participation of the tokens are quite different.

I’m in favor of a 50/50 split between mana and land.
How it would look:
MANA at the moment has 1,327,372,145 circulating supply…
minus the DAO etc let’s say 1,000,000,000…
LAND there are 90,000 squares minus roads and genesis let’s say 80k…
1b / 80k = 12,500
Obviously both are dynamic…
I don’t really think MANA is 6x more valuable…

If the LAND was worth 50% of what MANA is worth then I would vote more…
LAND being 16% the value of all the votes is pointless…

So you would give each land a value of 12,500 MANA while it’s worth less than 5,000 MANA on the marketplace?
LANDs is already being more used than MANA, the majority of votes are won with votes from lands owners, especially with DG voting with its 900 LANDs (which is currently worth 1.8M VP), DG would be able to vote with 12M VP, it’s totally killing the voting with MANA and making MANA VP useless

That’s not really what I was saying…
My suggestion is to take the average price from the marketplace…

If the average price paid for per square was 12,500 then I think it’s fair…
DG land and districts could be valued at ICO…

Look at the polls and see how much mana is participating vs land. More than half of the mana supply is sitting on exchanges or the foundation+dao, so a VP of 2000 might not be that off. The idea is to let all participants have a balanced voice, I’m not saying 2000 VP is the right number, but the answer is not 2 + 2