Where did you get these numbers?

Thanks for the positive contribution(s) to the DAO

Would you support some sort of continuous LAND issuance? This proposal has been REJECTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xfe91c0c482e09600f2d1dbca10fd705bc6de60bc)

Our community has spoken, and it's clearly against my proposal (at least for now). Thanks to everyone who contributed to the conversation. I'll revisit these ideas in a year or so.

Would you support some sort of continuous LAND issuance? This proposal is now in status: FINISHED. Voting Results: * Yes 35% 1,678,123 VP (31 votes) * No 65% 3,023,992 VP (34 votes) * Invalid question/options 0% 0 VP (0 votes)

I'd support it, but this would make people mad since some of them bought it at the top price. I think the fairest would be to create an airdrop for people: - who did actual events - built new stuff - have POI - onboarded more people There rest should be a program-based lottery some kind.

I would support something like this in the future once more LANDs have been developed on, for now I think it's important to focus on getting more content in DCL

I like the idea of forwarding robust rental or even shared/free land-use solutions over dilution at this time. I also think that the destabilizing impact of creating a precedence of land expansion could out-weight the benefits of making the ecosystem more accessible. I do however support continued conversation on this issue at the community level to find solutions to the core problematic underlying this proposal: Platform accessibility and engageability as it relates to land access and use.

To me it seems better to leave it to the inevitable. Someday soon, some group will fork LAND and the core parts of the tech stack to create an alternative space that runs under a different set of parameters. It’s probably already in progress. LiteCoin, DogeCoin are offshoots of Bitcoin, and in the same way, it feels that if LAND is the Bitcoin of the metaverse, then we will see alternative instances of LAND chains that have been set up with different operational parameters. $10 LAND in a map of millions of LANDs makes sense on many levels. But it will be a sprawl and encourage a different approach to experiences. Go look at Second Life to imagine what it would be like. Awesome actually - but very different to what is being created here. And why throw one away to make room for the other, when you can have both? Many early investors into this eco system did so on the basis that there would never be more than the initial mint of 90,000 LANDs. The founders stood side by side with DCG at the Ready Player One event run in NYC, 2018, where this was stated to a theatre full of investors. Many of whom went on to take what was said as gospel and go on to create businesses and to employ people in this ecosystem. If more LAND could be minted tomorrow. then **even** **more** could be minted the day after. Once you break a principle you can never put it back together. If we wish to see the best entertainment, sport, games coming to Decentraland then there has to be a focal point which those with the budgets and energy to accomplish those things can enter into. Allowing that to flourish by ring fencing Genesis City to its current size does not mean that the drawbridge is raised for those without the funds to buy into its current form. It actually spurs on Decentraland’s community into a different form of expansion. An expansion that is not centralised into a one size fits all arrangement of LAND. Instead an expansion born out of the community makes much more sense — then there is no need to destabilise what has become the premier crypto metaverse. Instead we should be spurring on those with the ability to champion community minded offshoots. To me that is more what this particular architecture/stack gives us. Many other metaverses are going to be locked into singular implementations and game engines. Decentraland can become a web of metaverses. Some based on different LAND forks, others with off-chain UI forks. The opportunities are endless. Making this incarnation into the second life of the metaverse would be a big mistake IMO. This community could put its energy into expanding and creating variations that service particular needs more effectively rather than fighting what this initial variant has become. Language, function, cost, religion are all compelling reasons to promote expansion via the creation of coexisting metaverses on the same stack rather trying inflating this metaverse to promote the expansion. No town hall is going to resolve the damage that would be done to this project if the number of LAND NFTs in Genesis City is ever increased. *A whole universe of Decentraland that is accessible for all to own and express themselves on* is what I’m sure everyone here wants. IMO we will not get there by increasing the amount of LAND that can be explored at [play.decentraland.org](http://play.decentraland.org) we will get there by the brightest minds here forking Decentraland and creating offshoot communities with differing slants on all that this should be.

@dax I agree that we should look into the development of scenes on LAND that has never had a scene deployed on it, treat it as abandoned LAND until the owner returns and deploys their own scene over it, should be a DAO vote proposal to approve or remove the scene. Below are counts of LAND that have had some modification to the parcel info by last update and is either district or owned LAND, not plaza or roads LAND. Last update seem to include sold, transferred, name change, added or removed from estates, but doesn't include scene deploys from what I can tell (still working on this). +------+-------+ | year | count | +------+-------+ | 2018 | 12369 | | 2019 | 5801 | | 2020 | 6331 | | 2021 | 26341 | | 2022 | 28730 | +------+-------+

I'm all in with more land, but I have the following questions: - Who is more likely to buy the auctioned land, people that already own land? (probably yes) - Will the new land be develop? (I don't think so) I agree with the problem, but I think a robust renting / borrowing scheme is a better solution in the current situation: https://github.com/decentraland/rentals-contract

I like the idea of more land/access for devs, but creating more land as-is seems like dilution of an asset that our most actively involved community members are invested in. Do we really want to rug the people who ARE building and deploying on large plots of land? Some of these cost $100,000-$250,000+ and required significant investment. I think this proposal raises good points about bringing in more devs/deployers, however I think it can be done in a more interesting way, here is a few ideas: - L2 land is slowly released, but you cannot teleport to it (requires walking/running outside main square) - L2 land is unlimited size parcels accessed via 'portals' and sold for a fixed fee by DCL, not present on the main overworld, a new portal entrance area would be created to browse/access all portals (or directly teleport via link) - Allow deployment on 'inactive' parcels that have no custom/user deployed items, if it's plain land or just plain builder assets that are 2-3+ years old let community submit requests to convert that land temporarily (owner could always come back and write over).

right, thanks for clarifying. since DCL can upload new scenes to vacant land (for example around the holidays they upload snowy scenes), i wonder if deceased land could still be utilized for public scenes or things which the foundation wants to upload - then it's at least not fully dead

Deceased LAND to me is LAND where the keys are no longer accessible for whatever reason. It's going to be very hard to ever discover which current LAND is deceased, so my thinking was one option was to have leasehold LAND as a new class of LAND, meaning that it has some sort of rental term and payment amount, if the payment isn't made for whatever reason the LAND is returned to the DAO to lease out again. This new class of LAND wouldn't have any resell value, and could be a non transferable lease as well. I haven't seen any LAND being sent to a burn address yet, but I may have missed it.

just to clarify, when you say "deceased LAND" do you mean LANDs which no longer have an owner or are effectively inaccessible (due to lost wallet or another cause)? I'm also really curious what should be done with those LANDs (and indeed what *can* be done..?)

I completely respect @maraoz 's perspective on this and agree that sometime in the future land expansion should be considered. But to do it as a continuous process would turn land into a commodity and drain huge amounts of value from current landholders. I'd rather see something like a completely separate "city" opened up in the future with a new land sale -- a different class of land as @stateless said. And to @maraoz 's other point, land expansion doesn't make sense until it's a lot easier for someone to build and deploy on the land. Until the 12-year-olds can do it. Game jams can be another source. I was priced out of the initial land auction but eventually collected some parcels by placing highly in game jams. The advantage there is that you know the person getting the land has the ability to build something.

Another option could be a LAND split similar to a stock split, but could be an expiring option (maybe 3-6 months), so LAND holders could receive new LAND and could develop, rent, or sell which could bring down LAND prices but not at severe disadvantage of active LAND holders. I'm open to exploring ways of expanding the board and bringing down LAND costs while trying to deal with what I think is a problem of deceased LAND. I'll be attempting to quantify the deceased LAND issue to more degree later this week, maybe it's not a problem at all. Clearly a native rent/lease contract should be operational within DCL as well.

Decentraland is maybe 50% developed as it is. The amount of undeveloped space is massive and, even though a large amount of it may be held by people with no plan on developing, it doesnt make sense to just leave it blank while new land gets created elsewhere (not to mention the same thing could happen with a whale winning all of the auctions for example). I think a better idea is for people interested in developing or funding the creation of experiences to get in touch with the owners of these large areas of land. Many land owners may even be willing to give free operator rights just to have stuff built. Another option is looking at Aetheria and other district land that trades at a substantial discount to private land due to certain limitations.

We don't need to increase Land supply yet. We need to focus on how to rent a land for Virtual Architect. Also we need mobile app for increase meta verse visiting.

I think DCL should organize more GameJams or similar competions for both developers and builders and as prizes give out the new land. This way it would attract more developers to DCL and there would be a bigger chance that land would end up in the right hands.

Barely 50% of current LAND is being built on, so why issue more LAND at all? Perhaps do something about all the empty LAND first.

I think we can help fix a big chunk of this issue now by setting up a website, or Google form sent out by the Foundation even, that links: 1) Current LAND owners who'd be willing to lend their LAND for free 2) Makers/Artists that'd be willing to build on the LAND if they had some to use I've also asked in the #SDK channel on Discord if there's a way for DCL-core to query their DB to see how many LAND parcels have had a deploy in them historically so we can assess just how much LAND has gone unused.

For instance, the new LAND could be leasehold, so we don't end up with deceased LAND.

I’m for some sort of orderly issuance of new LAND, but the new LAND should be a different class of LAND where we can correct some of the issues that have brought us to this point. Let’s learn from history, not repeat it.

I would encourage anyone voting to read through the conversation between @Frank @ile and @MorrisMustang in the DAO channel here: https://discord.com/channels/417796904760639509/538106198419832844/998739690750492743 the main point for me is this: the rental market is barely tapped and the DCL backed rental contract is not even out yet, alternate clients are only just starting to be explored and the heroku option for deploying land to testnet is not widely used. if it becomes clear that those three options don't work and there is still a need for more land, i would be willing to explore other ideas, but the idea to add new land before testing those ideas fully seems premature at best