Infrastructure for LANDs This proposal is now in status: REJECTED. Voting Results: * Yes 65% 5,190,261 VP (68 votes) * No 16% 1,349,993 VP (8 votes) * Abstain 19% 1,572,247 VP (34 votes)

I think this is a solid attempt and example of how a decentralized district can be run, what's more, if it is not working, we can likely alter and tweak this with more DCLDAO proposals. I see no major cause for concern here, especially with the fact we have already acquired a decent amount of the land for DCLDAO to be put to use, this seems like a great idea.

Hey @CheddarQueso, thanks for the feedback. The thought process on the limit for VP is to lower the barrier of entry for any participants so that it won't be a daunting process. However I am also fully aware that it may open the process to abuse, hence it's good that we monitor the first iteration, which hopefully takes off. I do also believe that while a high amount of VP may be needed, the better safeguard is actually with the community and it's voting members/delegates to allow/deny an application.

Thanks @3Point1Four for reaching out to me by DM to ask about my vote. I will answer here for transparency. I was against the DAO purchasing land in the first place. I don't believe it is true diversification. We sweep the cheapest lands at the end of every month, raising the floor and the barrier to entry for land ownership, the purchases are made arbitrarily choosing random lands just because they are cheap, and the 40K limit is too high, at at time when we continue to spend more than we make, and land rental is in low demand, so profits will be zero... but we are past that bridge. Now that we have the land we must do something with it, and that is why I voted yes for annex A... but I disagree with the 2m threshold, it is way too low, I noticed a good amount of voters abstaining from this proposal without giving any reason why. I asked but got no response.. and two of the previous votes resulted in invalid question, so I thought it safest to vote no until we either raise the threshold or I hear more convincing arguments in favor. After reviewing the final version, there is little else I disagree with. If the community supports this I am ok with it moving forward and reviewing in 6 months as you mentioned above. Thank you for reaching out. I'm always happy to give proposals a second look and hear other input before making a decision.

Well, who knows maybe they missed the first ping. At least I asked a second time, if it turns out fruitless then I know I've tried.

[quote="3Point1Four, post:16, topic:20242"] @Skazi, @potradamus, @Sannin would love for your thoughts to be shared either here or via discord DM if there’s any doubts. [/quote] you already asked once. Do you think they didn't see it the first time? The irony of your choice to keep pressuring them is probably lost on you.

I agree with what you've suggested. If this passes we'll see how the model works and if it requires tweaking I'll do one after collecting the data and feedback in 6 months. @Skazi, @potradamus, @Sannin would love for your thoughts to be shared either here or via discord DM if there's any doubts. I would love to push this proposal through as it benefits all parties within the community.

Voted yes, but I do wish that the VP requirements for this would be set way higher. A change that I would like to see in this Infrastructure for Lands program in the future. Higher VP requirements and even a 60/40 yes/no ratio needed for land use request proposals to be accepted. This is something that I think we should be pushing for on all DAO votes.

I'm not sure why so many are voting to abstain but I am apprehensive to vote for this until I hear the reasoning behind it.. This is why I don't support hidden voting. I want to see votes in real time and ask the important questions before, not after. I am not in the business of harassing or attacking anyone for their vote, but some reasonable explanation is not too much to ask.. and we shouldn't have to wait until the voting period is over to be able to make this request.

Hey, the applicant can always reapply for extension of another 90 days.

I would like to see other options than 90 days. Perhaps 6months and/or a year.

Hey thanks for tagging me and I'm tracking the reason now behind this proposal. Voted Yes, and encourage everyone to take another look at this.

Hey @dogman , thanks again for being willing to relook. So essentially, The DAO owns a growing portfolio of LANDs/ESTATEs from the monthly buyback, but nobody has a way to use it because we haven't set up the means for it, hence this governance proposal. Anyone from the community can apply to use any of the available land to build their project, provided they come up with a proof of concept and the community is willing to support. There will also be a limit, max 90 days so that others will get a chance to use. @maryana, @Sannin, @friskybumblebee, @Skazi, @potradamus, would you also care to relook into this because it benefits the community as a whole. If you find any issues, bring it up and I'll see if I can address it.

hey yes I can take another look at it. what do you think the benefits are?

Good question, puzzles me too. :man_shrugging: The whole point of the proposal is to allow everyone in the community to use the LANDs we've bought. Its almost as if we don't want to enable the use of LANDs we now own?

Why are so many voting to abstain from this proposal?

Thanks for the clarification! Would you mind reading through it and reconsider your vote?

didnt read the other drafts of this so dont feel educated enough on community sentiment to vote either way.

For a TL;DR version Proposal is set up to formally allow the use of LANDs that have been acquired by the DAO so far. For reference, this are the LANDs that have been acquired over the past 2 months. https://opensea.io/0x89214c8Ca9A49E60a3bfa8e00544F384C93719b1 Edit: Hey @maryana @dogman, i'd like to know the reason for voting abstain. Maryana you did vote Yes on the draft previously. Thanks

This will be the format for the LAND application form: **Form for LAND related matters** Before applying for the use of any space, please ensure that the land you are choosing isn’t already occupied. You can refer to (add in aragon wallet add) to see which LANDs the DAO owns. Do note that roads are not for rent. **LOCATION (if applicable)** [xx], [yy] (similar to POI format) [Option to add more parcels] (max 10 parcels) or ESTATE NAME (max 1) **TITLE** The permission you would like to seek for {Create drag down bar that places 2 options, Permission to rent LAND at [location] and Others} (E.g I want to rent land) **PURPOSE** Give a brief description of what the space is for/ what is the matter you would like to address. (Rent it to build a playing space/gallery) **DO YOU BELONG TO A DAO SQUAD/COMMITTEE** Yes/No options Choosing ‘No’ will disable the option to choose a longer timeframe (up to 180 days max) **AMOUNT OF TIME TO BE OCCUPIED** [Option of 7, 30, 60, 90] days for members, and [180] days option for Squad **TOTAL RENT PAYABLE PER DAY DURING OCCUPANCY (IF ANY)** [XXXX] **OTHER INFORMATION** Include details such as if you are currently renting another space from the DAO, or that you are a grantee. **CO-AUTHORS (OPTIONAL)** Options available for members to choose Yes No Abstain

Update: The 6m VP cap for LAND proposals has been removed. This is to prevent abuse of the rent system by rogue entities attempting to rent enmass without a legitimate cause. An allotted time of 7 days is also implemented. Finally, a cap to the the gas fees per transaction is introduced. Quote “**rent payable PER DAY during occupancy (if any)**” under specifications The rationale for adding an option to allow tenants to pay rent sounds odd but if for example, a grantee has been using a certain plot for awhile, is sustainable and wishes to pay to continue using the spot, they are able to do so. Most tenants will not exercise that option, they’ll just want to use it for free. It is included so that in future, if there’s a need, we don’t need to go through the whole governance proposal again just to add an option that allows the tenants to pay rent