I like the idea of a second City. I recall there were discussions floating around to make deployed WORLDS as islands surrounding the Genesis City. So instead of a standalone WORLD visited by moving out of Genesis, they are populated on the "sea" and people can visit them by either taking a boat, a train or a smart wearable that allow you to fly. Anyone play Blox Fruit on Roblox? Something like that.

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.

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

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.

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

[quote="esteban, post:45, topic:24371"] 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 [/quote] 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?

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.** 9. "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. [quote="lastraum, post:14, topic:24371"] This is a hard fork moment for the platform. [/quote] I believe this is quite an overstatement. [quote="lastraum, post:21, topic:24371"] 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% [/quote] 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 [quote="Canessa, post:20, topic:24371"] 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. [/quote] 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). [quote="Murpheus, post:25, topic:24371"] 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. [/quote] `"permanentDeployment": true` would allow for this use case [quote="lastraum, post:40, topic:24371"] * 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 [/quote] Super agree, I 100% think there are a lot of missed opportunities there. [quote="lastraum, post:40, topic:24371"] 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”? [/quote] 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.

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)

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)

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

* this is a great example because the owners of the land (DAO) are giving the right to deploy on it * i wrote a script this weekend that pinged the catalyst servers for each parcel. here are the findings. `Total sdk6 parcels`: 44,652 `Total sdk7 parcels`: 7,946 `Total parcels with no content`: 37,402 Last Deployments: `More than 3 months`: 87,812, `More than 6 months`: 86,893, `More than 1 year`: 84,513 Based on these findings, that means 41.55% of lands have never been deployed to (no content), and 93.9% of lands haven't been deployed to in over a year. So, this poll would essentially be able to deploy to over 93.9% of lands in Genesis City. *This dataset does not include any filtering because the poll in its current form does not provide any filtering. No filtering for roads (they have content deployed at least once, so they are not in the `no content` category), plazas, this parcel over that parcel, top over bottom, left over right, more popular over less popular, historical scene or stupid content, etc. The poll discusses none of that, which sets up a slippery slope of who gets to choose what and why and how…of other people’s land.* * and if that's the case, maybe this wasn't the right solution to the actual problem? * agreed, refer concepts in bullet point 1 * 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 * i hope the sdk7 can be standardized across all clients * 5.5 years into a project that failed to progress to substantial DAU count is justification for changing the ownership percentage of the peoples' LAND nfts? *Added Bullet points below* * Currently, there are only **2** methods content can show up on a parcel of land, and the LAND nft owner owns the rights to both of those methods **100%**: * * LAND nft owner deploys content * * LAND nft owner gives permission to another person * This poll is introducing a **3rd** method for content on a parcel of land, which means LAND nft owners will now own **2/3** methods for content on their land, which is now **66%** ownership. In what world, real or digital, do you buy something under the impression of **100%** ownership and only receive **66%** actual ownership and are ok with that? * I disagree with past actions for removing offensive content from parcels and i highly disagree with recently banning someone from the platform. 2 wrongs don't make a right, so i do not take those as "precedent" when thinking about this current poll * 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"? We are in the web3 / digital ownership frontier and we should be even more mindful of respecting true data ownership.

I believe community members have raised valid points. Thanks! This is what I think : - Starting to experiment with DAO-owned LAND makes a lot of sense. - I think it's a good call to circumscribe the concept of "abandoned" LAND to never-deployed plots. We can get the data on that and incorporate it into the Draft stage. - I still believe an opt-in mechanism would limit the potential of this initiative. Many LAND owners never engaged and likely never will. - It would send a strong signal if the Decentraland Foundation contributes at least as many LAND parcels as the DAO commits to this initiative. - We should always prioritize populating DAO- and Foundation-owned LAND first, and only then consider LAND owned by private holders. - Some interesting ideas raised before (Portals or a traversable game experience across parcels) are worth revisiting in the future. - @JasonX: In terms of usage, the Android mobile client is not far behind the Explorer alpha. Even if no one uses it today, I believe it’s critical for a decentralized project to offer multiple clients to access the protocol. If one of those clients experiments with different policies, even better. - Web3 values matter, that’s why many of us are here, but we also need to ask: would we rather build a product with perfect values that no one uses, or one that’s being used and progressively empowers people to take control of their digital lives? I think we should be choosing the path for the long run, and that requires more users, more creators, and more developers.

Apparently, a misguided understanding of what "decentralized" means

Nope. Nope. Nope. Do you remember why we are on web3?

No one uses Godot so no one cares what happens there.

Only on clients and catalysts using the Foundation ban list. They cannot do it on the Godot client for example.

They already can void active builds, and have

[quote="CheddarQueso, post:32, topic:24371"] **Never-deployed land:** Represents our primary opportunity and should be the only focus of initial implementation. [/quote] That would be an exception I would be in favor of, but that would mean have the system in place to easily overwrite other lands in the future, and I don't believe it's a great tool to have at dispositions. (We know all the "terrorism" laws that are now being used against all citizens, it would be the same with this tool, first used for empty lands, then for all lands.)

I vote yes and recommend advancing this poll for further discussion. We can always kill the measure at later stages if consensus cannot be reached. The concerns brought up in the comment thread are valid, but can be addressed through continued dialogue. Land owners, as VP holders, retain collective authority to modify DAO legislation at any time. Decentraland is now five years old, with land contracts predating the platform's launch. Market conditions, scaling challenges, and user expectations have fundamentally evolved since inception. I think this represents a natural adaptation process rather than a deviation from core principles. Active landowners should participate in shaping the platform's future, which will inevitably differ from its origins—but evolution does not equal deterioration. I believe we can preserve landowner rights while maximizing utilization of empty parcels. My initial contention: * **Previously deployed land:** Should remain untouched in perpetuity. Replacing existing content creates a dangerous precedent that undermines established rights. * **Never-deployed land:** Represents our primary opportunity and should be the only focus of initial implementation. I hope we can continue the discussion focused on virgin land deployment, with explicit protections for any previously developed properties.

I think the problem at heart is not having enough platform users and this initiative isn't a well thought (planned) solution to fix that problem. My thoughts: - Modyfying the ownership rights via backdoor goes against the ethos of Decentraland & Decentralization - If some of the dual parcel highways were to be reduced to single roads, this will violate the rights of users who own land in these areas. Suddenly road facing, easy access with great visibility promise will be overshadowed by land born from thin air. - Decentraland sign should never be removed, because it's part of Decentraland history. We will be doing injustice to those who purchased land adjoining and or surrounding the sign by undervaluing their land. - To bring in new users the focus has to be on VR & Mobile. - Why not think of some incentive or rewards systems for the land owners? - Start with DAO owned land first - Creating more scenes and populating the world with more content is not going to bring in more users. - If you still prefer to add more content why not introduce islands surrounding the genesis city? - We have 44 active daily users, your focus should be on increasing this number however this is not the right way to go about it. -

I agree with @ [MetaRyuk](https://forum.decentraland.org/u/metaryuk) that this should only apply to parcels that have remained completely empty and unused for over a year or two. As someone who has built hundreds if not thousands of lands over the years, I know many of those builds are now inaccessible either because I no longer have deploy access, or the landowners are unreachable. Still, I’d love to see some of those creations live on. Even if many of them were built with SDK6, they represent history and creativity that shouldn’t just disappear. *but, if you decide* that the original content can be removed because its old I think a fair solution could be allowing a 'return to original' toggle—so if a landowner ever returns, they can instantly restore the last original scene on their parcel with one click, even if the land had temporary content by someone who create. In addition, I support the opt-in idea as well—some landowners might actively want to give permission to host content on their inactive land. So this way, both paths are covered: purely empty or unreachable lands can be gently revived, and active owners can choose whether to participate.

Would you mind getting together and discussing the final draft proposal on what to do with DAO land that is unused. Previous proposal is here is at least one of them. The last one was voted on this year and passed. I need some input from people that may think if things I have not. In general, some grantees can request the use of the land, people can rent the land and in some cases given build rights and if they meet certain criteria even be given the opportunity to purchase at a reduced price or even maybe be given the land to continue to build. Let me know. Ill see if anyone else would like in on this to discuss. Thank you

If content is deployed on "abandoned" LAND ... $MANA MUST be paid to the LAND owner before any content can be published because you are renting the parcel. I agree with HP as well, who is held accountable when something is published that goes against the owner's values. If i took a small break from Decentraland and came back to pride flags on my parcels, i would sell all my parcels for $1 the same day. DCLWorlds is a realm designed for publishing content.. create better portals to enter DCLWorlds instead of looking for ways to infringe upon the Owners/Users of Decentraland. Please & Thank you :innocent:

I support this initiative under the specific condition that "auto deployment" is limited to empty parcels that have remained undeployed for over 365 days, and that parcel owners are given a clear option to remove the content with a simple click. Decentraland has often been labeled an "empty town" by reviewers, visitors, and even landowners themselves. With some (or many) of these empty parcels held by speculators, it’s reasonable to assume there is little intent to build or contribute content in the near term - some have been empty for years and demand to rent land is low. I also personally know a parcel owner who lost his keys and no longer able to interact with his parcel leaving it permanently empty. Auto-deploying scenes would improve the visual appeal of the platform, offering explorers a more engaging content rather than navigating through vacant plots. It also tackles the empty lands owned by owners no longer have access to them. There is also precedent for this approach — during past seasonal events like Christmas, unused parcels were automatically populated with themed decorations, and no significant objections were raised at the time. Currently, Decentraland suffers from a lack of activity and limited destinations to visit or explore. While there may still be “less to do,” this proposal could result in “more to visit.” In my view, increasing places to explore through auto-deployment of interesting scenes is a step in the right direction — as more to visit may eventually lead to more to do.

I know for a fact that if you remove the Decentraland sign @Roustan will leave however, the part about the two lane roads is valid, though then you are rugging the people who purchased parcels with the intention of being next to the road, and I really don't see how that wouldn't be worse then publishing property on abandoned and unpublished land. Perhaps if the draft of the proposal makes it more well defined and only populates empty land or better defines the criteria it would use when identifying abandoned property it would deem worthy of populating with updated content to fit the area around it, people would be less reactionary to this idea. I really think most of you are being incredibly dramatic about this. You guys are speaking about Decentraland as if anyone beyound the 200 or less of us care about it. The servers will be shut off before any of us die if some kind of change isn't made, and the framing of this as if they are attacking your very existence as people seems overblown. This is a poll, it is for gathering information and feedback so that more detailed and quality governance can be written taking in to account everyones concerns. When people snap to "NO THIS RUINS WHAT WE SIGNED UP FOR" you have forgotten the fundemental nature of how this dao's governance process works and have instead chosen to just be obstructionist. And to be clear, since this started as a reply to HP, I do not intend what I'm writing to be expressly meant for you HP, though I do think you are a bit dramatic in how you speak about this suggestion, I also understand where you are coming from and don't think you are meritless in your call outs, I just think that I disagree on what would be best