[quote="toxicwaifu, post:31, topic:25356"] What I haven’t been able to find in the public documentation is how that role is assigned, who governs that authority or what process sits behind it. So for me, part of this process is also clarifying: **where does DAO authority end, where does Foundation authority begin and where is cooperation between both required?** [/quote] Wow. This is exactly what I was trying to fix with my last proposal. https://decentraland.org/governance/proposal/?id=47f93a25-ee84-4f51-a6b7-bd4d48c905ba \*\*You can reference The DAO mission statement proposal which explicitly states: \*\* *"It is necessary to clearly distinguish the roles of the Decentraland Foundation and the DAO, with the Foundation focusing on infrastructure and the DAO on governance and collective resources management."* And from the Specification section under Responsibilities of the DAO there are 4 explicitly defined roles are listed: * Fund strategic projects * Safeguard critical smart contracts * Manage the Treasury responsibly * Enable stakeholders to participate in decision-making And this line directly: *"Additionally, this mission, along with the shared vision of Decentraland, should be clearly stated and reflected in all relevant documentation of the DAO, including governance processes, communication materials, and any documents that represent Decentraland, the DAO, or the project as a whole."* https://decentraland.org/governance/proposal/?id=923d0c82-7ba7-4c39-836a-17f959741b1a of which From the @DAO-Council Communication Thread, first post, February 17, 2025: *"Council members' mandate includes creating and overseeing the Executive Arm, approving annual strategies and budgets, and ensuring alignment with the DAO's mission."*

TBH Jarod caused alot of scenes than building alot of scenes :rofl: but you do you frenz, i agree to it when it comes to decentralization haha, but if iam the founder of this shit... il do the same, and wouldnt allow this to pass. perhaps do a neigbhodd ip bann hahah its like doing 9 troubles in the community but didnt fix 1, how many community members that you didnt know the name that quits because of this persona?? you will not know... i see him as a spy from oither country doing congress as much as possible.. the opposite of progress just buy a name zJarod, xJarod or yJarod ffs

Yes, Decentraland is described as community-driven and governed through the DAO, and the documentation identifies the DAO as Decentraland’s “decision-making platform.” However, decision-making authority is not necessarily the same as implementation authority. Technically and operationally, the DAO is not the executor, nor does it automatically possess the access, permissions, or authority required to implement decisions involving systems outside its control. My point is that, while a transparent, documented, and reviewable framework would be valuable, creating one does not by itself resolve the central implementation problem. We could develop a comprehensive framework with clear criteria, evidence requirements, review procedures, and appeal mechanisms, but if enforcement remains under the Foundation’s control, and the Foundation has not agreed to be bound by that framework, it may have no practical obligation to implement it. The result could therefore be a well-designed governance document without a reliable mechanism for putting it into practice. For this specific case, however, I consider the LAND owner’s request to allow the banned user access to their own LAND to be fair and reasonable. I therefore suggest addressing this concrete issue through a separate proposal, for example, allowing platform-banned users to access specified LAND when the owner explicitly requests it, or limiting such bans to Foundation-controlled spaces while preserving the autonomy of other LAND owners. If the proposal passes, it would give the community a clear mandate to present to the Foundation and request a practical, technically feasible implementation.

Very valuable links you included here @toxicwaifu ! I encourage everyone to review. Perhaps instead of replacing what exists, we vote to create and include a non-platform wide ban transaction, which affects only Foundation/DAO owned land. This would be used 99% of the time for a ban instead. The harsher 1% Full platform ban used only for the rare instance that is deemed worthy of a platform-wide ban, which almost would never be applied. In the cases of artista and Jar0d, IMO they would fall under the 99% ban.

[quote="MetaRyuk, post:29, topic:25356"] In the case of Jar0d, he is not currently banned platform-wide in the literal sense: he can still participate in the DAO Discord and Decentraland forums, and he is not blocked by the Decentraland DAO or Regenesis Labs accounts on X. The restrictions appear to apply primarily to the Foundation-moderated Discord and Foundation-managed platform, areas that are not controlled or operated by the DAO, Regenesis Labs, or the DAO Council. [/quote] For what it is worth, I think there are some points worth clarifying from the perspective of a foundation banned user. 1. The DAO holds townhalls in the foundation discord server. 2. The DAO mobile app, and I imagine any other future products, still reference foundation controlled catalysts (I apologize if that is the wrong technical term) and while I can log in, I can not see any other users. 3. I do otherwise agree that this governance is primarily symbolic. Though you could argue that since the DAO is intended to one day run the entire show, it should be prepared for that occasion edit: Oh, and I’m not blocked by dcl twitter, we jist unfollowed each other 🙈

Should Decentraland Create Clear Rules for Platform-Wide Bans? This proposal is now in status: FINISHED. Voting Results: * Yes! develop a clear framework 91% 4,660,014 VP (23 votes) * No! keep the current system 8% 429,327 VP (2 votes) * Invalid question/options 1% 4,461 VP (1 votes)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this @MetaRyuk! I agree that Foundation cooperation is needed for implementation. But given that Decentraland is still explicitly described as **community-driven and governed through the DAO** in the current [Decentraland Terms](https://decentraland.org/terms/#:~:text=The%20Decentraland%20Platform,organization%20(the%20%22DAO%22).) and [Decentraland Docs](https://docs.decentraland.org/introduction/about-decentraland#decentraland-is-community-driven-what-does-that-mean:~:text=Decentraland%20belongs%20to%20the%20people%20who%20use%20it.%20There%27s%20no%20central%20company%20controlling%20the%20platform%20or%20deciding%20what%20happens%20next%E2%80%94that%27s%20all%20decided%20by%20the%20community%20through%20the%20DAO.), I’m not sure we should start from the assumption that the DAO can only make a non-binding request. The current [DAO Docs](https://docs.decentraland.org/dao/dao/what-is-the-dao#:~:text=The%20DAO%20is%20the%20decision%20making%20platform%20for%20Decentraland.) still describe the DAO as Decentraland’s “decision making platform” while the technical [Platform Moderation Docs](https://docs.decentraland.org/apis/apis/comms-gatekeeper/platform-moderation#:~:text=Requires%20Signed%20Fetch%20authentication%20plus%20a%20valid%20moderator%20role%2C%20verified%20server%2Dside%20via%20moderatorAuthMiddleware.) show that platform-level bans require a valid moderator role, verified server-side. What I haven’t been able to find in the public documentation is how that role is assigned, who governs that authority or what process sits behind it. So for me, part of this process is also clarifying: **where does DAO authority end, where does Foundation authority begin and where is cooperation between both required?** One small clarification on “platform-wide”: the current [Decentraland Docs](https://docs.decentraland.org/apis/apis/comms-gatekeeper/platform-moderation#post-users-address-bans) use that term for a ban that prevents a user from entering any Genesis City scene or island room. So access to the DAO Forum, DAO Discord or X doesn’t contradict that technical definition. Even if platform-level bans ultimately remain outside DAO authority, I still think such a far-reaching power should come with a transparent, documented and reviewable process. A framework doesn’t necessarily have to mean that the DAO decides every ban. It could define the level of transparency, documentation, criteria and appeal process the community expects from such a system

Thanks for digging this up @Existential14! I think both points actually get very close to what I hope this discussion can clarify. I completely agree on the first one. This poll cannot force the Foundation to unban anyone and that is not what I expect it to do. For me, the important part is exactly what you describe: having a standard in the first place, so decisions and deviations from that standard become visible and understandable. The LAND point is especially interesting tbh. If those public parcels were placed under DAO custody, while the Foundation today operates infrastructure that can restrict access to them, then ownership, custody and moderation authority clearly aren't as simple as “their turf, their rules”.. I don’t think we should assume the answer in either direction. But I do think this is exactly the kind of boundary the next stage should help clarify: **what belongs to whom, who can make which decisions and who ultimately has the technical authority to enforce them.** I can already tell this will open up a lot more work than I initially hoped 😅 but step by step Thanks for bringing the source into the discussion. This is exactly the kind of context I was hoping this poll would surface!

While I support the idea of the DAO developing a clear governance framework (recall we once had a DAO's code of ethics and each decision made by the mods always led to further conflicts), such a framework would only be meaningful if the Decentraland Foundation agrees to align with and implement it. The DAO does not control every part of the Decentraland ecosystem, and significant parts of the platform and its moderation infrastructure remain managed by the Foundation. In the case of Jar0d, he is not currently banned platform-wide in the literal sense: he can still participate in the DAO Discord and Decentraland forums, and he is not blocked by the Decentraland DAO or Regenesis Labs accounts on X. The restrictions appear to apply primarily to the Foundation-moderated Discord and Foundation-managed platform, areas that are not controlled or operated by the DAO, Regenesis Labs, or the DAO Council. Therefore, before developing such a framework, it is important to establish whether the Foundation is willing to participate in, recognize, and adhere to it. Otherwise, even if this proposal passes and the DAO creates a comprehensive framework, it may have little practical effect and amount to no more than a non-binding DAO policy if the Foundation chooses not to follow, execute or implement it.

I was going to write out the timeline of the history of my conflict with the foundation, out of a misguided desire to defend myself, but your own words are so unhinged that I can’t imagine anyone taking you seriously. “of course I used your photo to say awful things, it was public” is insane

Voting yes on developing the framework. Two things I want on the record, neither of which is about any individual case. **First — the Foundation doesn't have to unban anyone, and this poll can't make them.** The DAO has no mechanism to compel a Foundation moderation decision. If people are voting yes expecting a reversal, they should know that isn't what's on the table. What a published framework does is make deviation visible. Right now there's no standard to deviate from, which is the actual problem. **Second — on the "it's their turf" comment by** @3Point1Four **.** What constitutes what is the Foundation's land is debateable. Before we build a framework where authority follows ownership, that premise should be checked. From *Building the foundations for a decentralized virtual world*, February 19, 2020: > "The public LANDs that comprise Genesis City, such as the nine plazas and public road, equal to a total of 13,026 parcels, are now under the custody of the DAO." https://decentraland.org/blog/announcements/building-the-foundations-for-a-decentralized-virtual-world/ The same post states that all Decentraland policies, infrastructure, content moderation and assets are kept secure and neutral by virtue of decentralization, with the DAO as the organ through which MANA and LAND holders have their say over the platform. Content moderation is named there explicitly. So if this heads toward a jurisdiction question — and bullet nine of this proposal asks exactly that — 13,026 parcels including every plaza and every road were placed under DAO custody six years ago. Whether that's still the case is a checkable question, and someone should answer it before we write rules that assume otherwise. I'm not claiming this settles anything. The Foundation runs the client and the content servers regardless of who holds parcels, and that's real leverage no vote changes. But a framework built on "whose space is this" should start from what was actually written down.

@jar0d Your LinkedIn profile picture was publicly shared. If you were so concerned about it, why did you have it there in the first place? Funny that you feel you were unjustly banned from the Foundation Discord after making multiple attempts and threats toward Esteban, Yemel, others, and their families. You seem to have forgotten very quickly or maybe you can't remember, given your PTSD We all had a party when you were banned from the Discord. Everyone was so much happier afterward. New and current members started opening up more, and people weren't afraid to share their opinions or talk about different topics At one stage, you threatened the entire team, including the DAO and Foundation. I still remember it like it was yesterday because I was there when you were making those threats, both in Discord and in-world. You will never be unbanned from Decentraland. Period.

Ah @JasonX I misread your sentence "unrestricted access to THE REST of the platform". My bad. I thought you meant unrestricted access to the platform. The reasoning, other than him being my friend and I'd like him at my events, is because before he was banned he was building more than anyone on the platform while everyone else was complaining about client 2.0. I LOVE when people build on this platform because they are enjoying it. It costs money to transfer your assets to a new wallet to just be banned again by the foundation when they discover you made a new wallet.

I don't feel you are making a good-faith argument. I will remind you that you are the person who used MY LinkedIn profile picture as your Twitter PFP while calling the Decentraland community "retarded" among a number of other horrific things. But to the point of banning users and how that "encourages behavior that could harm the community." As it stands, you can really only ban a willing user from engaging in harmful behavior on the platform, as Artista has been so eager to demonstrate. The only thing stopping someone from creating multiple accounts and ruining events for others is the fact that they don't want to hurt their friends to make some misguided point to an authority figure who isn't paying attention anyway. Decentraland does not even have moderators with the power to ban users wallets working 7 days a week, as far as I can tell. It is actually more harmful to the average user for Decentraland to ban each instance of Artista. As it prevents users from being able to block the users one time and avoid having to deal with them. It is arguably a better experience for users if Decentraland stops antagonizing vitriolic users and just empowers the community to deal with it using the tools they've already provided. I'm not attempting to defend the PTSD fueld mental breakdown that resulted in my account being banned. I felt that I had consistently been unjustly banned from the Decentraland Discord and treated unfairly by moderators and people in positions of power, which activated my nervous system and ultimately led me to act out, so I would at least feel like I earned the punishment I received. That is what happened. I'm not proud of that fact. I didn't know I had PTSD at the time, though looking back, it is absurd that no one else in my life or I had ever thought to suggest it. Being broken doesn't make it okay to hurt other people, and while I think you can make a reasonable argument that I have never punched down in my life, I understand that if the people I've said hurtful things about, who happen to have a very meaningful stake in this platform, do not wish to offer me forgiveness, that is their choice.

For the record, i'm not condoning jar0d's action, or requesting that his identity be released. I am saying that there has to be a process when it comes to doing a platform wide ban. Foundation can unilaterally ban him on all of their scenes and I wouldn't have an issue because we have no say in it. But to implement a total/platform ban would mean total inaccessibility to ALL things related to Decentraland: client, Discord etc. and that requires due process. Just as IRL, both victim and perpetrator are given the right to counsel and defending themselves in a public court before being sent to the gallows, this should apply here. And I'd assume that 99% of all misconduct cases will end up with a local ban.

I don’t want to downplay what Jar0d did. But I’m glad he allows us to use his case here, because it makes a much broader issue very tangible. If we put the emotions around the individual case aside for a moment, what remains is this: a stakeholder who invested time, money and years into building a digital identity in Decentraland lost access to it. And speaking very selfishly as a stakeholder myself: if a system has the power to do that, I want to know exactly how that power is used. When was the ban issued? What were the concrete reasons? Were there warnings or previous strikes? What evidence was considered? Who made the final decision? I want to understand the rules of the platform I’m investing my own time, money and identity into. And I think new users should be able to understand that too. Right now, there is no clear public documentation of what Jar0d actually did. Those of us who were around at the time have our memories, screenshots and old Discord conversations, but a new user basically has to trust us when we say whether the ban was justified or not. I don’t think that should be the standard. People should be able to look at documented facts, understand the reasoning behind decisions and be enabled to form their own opinions when deciding whether this space is worth their time or not

Read my comment above. I don't have a position of Jar0d have unrestricted access. Not sure where you got that idea. Also, @esteban commented about Jar0d in the recent AMA and had kind things to say because they've been chatting. I'm sure he'll chime in at some point. perhaps during the final proposal.

I agree that growth should be a priority! But I don’t see this discussion as separate from growth. In my opinion, the bigger Decentraland gets, the more important it becomes to have clear rules around moderation, bans and authority. With a small user base, these issues are still manageable. At 10x, 100x or 1000x the scale, they won’t be. So I see defining these boundaries now as preparation for sustainable growth, not as distraction from it.

The Foundation has every right to terminate its relationship with someone and ban them from the platform if their conduct violates its rules. Given the impersonation of Yemel Jardí and public threats against Esteban, his family, Foundation and DAO members, and other users, I understand why the Foundation took action. What I don’t understand is your position that Jar0d should have unrestricted access to the rest of the platform. He can potentially participate under another username or persona where LAND owners allow it. If that is already happening, why is restoring the specific “Jar0d” username so important? If we allow this to happen, it could set a dangerous precedent. Other bad actors may believe they can engage in similar behaviour and simply return later without meaningful consequences. We should be setting a clear standard for the future, not encouraging behaviour that could harm the community, brand or the platform. I would really like to hear @esteban thoughts, since he is one of the victims and is now the acting Foundation Executive Director. I’m pretty certain that his position and vote will be very important in this matter.

This is a preemptive effort for the potential that we develop more than 30 DAU. If that were to happen, there would be far more Jar0d's with far worse behavior on the platform. This is just prepping for clarity.

This issue is not Jar0d, or your opinion of him, it's that foundation prevents users like him from joining my land and events. Just because you've written him off, doesn't mean I have. Foundation certainly can and should be able to ban whoever they like, just not platform wide. I want control of my land.

Jar0d’s case wasn’t just an example of heavy-handed or unilateral action, it involved years off repeated, ongoing harassment, threats to kill co-founders, and impersonating Yemel (now replaced by Esteban) Treating it as merely a governance dispute misses the severity of the conduct.

We have far more serious issues than bringing back someone who has threatened to kill everyone. With only \~30 DAU's our focus should be growth, new users, and the future not toxic drama.

I actually like reading your communication style. It's so calm and neutral. What a relief. Everyone is trying so hard to be clever and it gets boring to read. This is different. I might add something in a few days again.

[quote="3Point1Four, post:9, topic:25356"] Foundation can also share a public list of addresses with names that are banned so that private owners can decide if they want to add the whole list to their scenes or omit certain individuals. [/quote] What you described here is actually something @Roustan and I have also been brainstorming about. Since scene- and World-level bans already exist, this could potentially be taken a step further and integrated into the Creator Hub, allowing owners to decide whether they want to apply that list to their own spaces, for example through a simple opt-in toggle, while still being able to make exceptions. The same principle could potentially be extended to individual users. Decentraland already supports user-level muting, so this could be developed further into a personal filter: users could decide whether they want to interact with, or potentially even see, addresses on such a list in-world, somewhat similar to an NSFW filter. I'm not a developer, so I can't say how technically feasible this would be. I'd be very happy for someone with a better technical understanding to correct or expand on this. But leaving the technical side aside for a moment: To me, this would better reflect Decentraland's decentralized nature: the Foundation can moderate the spaces it is responsible for, while also giving scene and World owners, as well as individual users, the tools to make their own moderation choices. It also creates more proportional options between doing nothing and banning someone across the entire platform. I think there are many approaches like this that could be more transparent, effective and aligned with Decentraland than the current system. **Regarding** the idea that someone who is platform-wide banned can simply create a new account: That's already happening with Artista. Artista is platform-wide banned, but keeps returning with new accounts, (which are then banned as well). So if Jarod simply comes back as “JarodX,” there is a very real possibility that this account would also be banned. The question is therefore not only whether someone can technically create another wallet and return, but more this importsnt point by @swissverse here: [quote="swissverse, post:10, topic:25356"] Jarod can already return under a new account. What people want restored is the Jarod persona, with its name, history, reputation, and behavior attached. This is not really about access. It is about returning as the same character and reversing what the ban represented. [/quote] This brings us to a much bigger topic: **digital identity**. When is it appropriate to effectively remove someone's access to an identity they have built over years and who should have the authority to make that decision? The **[Decentraland Docs](https://docs.decentraland.org/introduction/about-decentraland#what-is-decentraland)** state: > “Everything in Decentraland is built and owned by the people who show up: the parcels, the scenes, the avatars, and the experiences. The infrastructure is decentralized, so no single company can take away your space, your identity, or what you've built.” But in Jarod’s case, in practice, someone did take away his identity and what he had built around it. In Artista’s case, we see the opposite problem: he can keep creating new accounts, turning enforcement into a race between account creation and account bans. To me, both cases showcase the issues of the current system . Platform-wide bans are an extremely far-reaching measure, yet they can either deeply affect someone’s digital identity or be relatively easy to circumvent. @jar0d was kind enough to let his case serve as a starting point for this discussion and I really appreciate that. But ultimately, this is about creating a better system for everyone. That is why we should define when such a ban is actually justified, who should have the authority to issue it and whether more targeted moderation tools would often be the better solution and about providing them.