To all the YES voters, enjoy your new NFTs :)))  Forgot to say that this NFTs are yours forever.

Should the LAND-to-MANA Ratio Be Revised ? This proposal has been REJECTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)

Should the LAND-to-MANA Ratio Be Revised ? This proposal is now in status: FINISHED. Voting Results: * Yes 32% 7,891,430 VP (69 votes) * No 66% 15,592,347 VP (70 votes) * Invalid question/options 2% 566,454 VP (4 votes)

Vote however you like its your vp in the end, thank you for your explanation I really do admire that you took the time with objective statements! In the end our opinions are different from one another but as a community I believe you did your duty elaborating with a reasonable explanation!

I will be voting **no** on this proposal, and I will be outlining my reasoning below. Important notes: * Our delegated VP is 100% from LAND delegations. * At a surface level, one would assume it is in the best interests of our delegators to see this proposal advanced. * At a deeper level, one would see that it is in the best interests of our delegators to see this proposal **halted** in its tracks. * VP Inequity is a serious problem in the DAO, and this proposal will only make it worse. * We are far too distracted, disconnected, and disenfranchised right now to make such structural/system-oriented decisions. The DAO is **not** in a good place right now, and I know I'm not the only one who sees it, knows it, and feels it. There's a lot of reasoning here in relation to this proposal that is dangerous. VP Inequity has long been a clear issue in the DAO, which has led to a lot of mistrust, infighting, and questionable decision-making over the last two years or so. Passing this proposal will only prove to further feed that mistrust, infighting, and possibility of more questionable (if not nefarious) decisions to be taken. **We need less inequality in our voting system, not more**. Anyone who has held a large amount of VP for some time, and aimed to use it to advance the DAO's interests (as opposed to their own), would understand how dangerous this proposal is; and I won't be surprised if several people 'give up' and leave as a consequence of this proposal. A few replies to some comments made here: [quote="InJesterr, post:11, topic:20356, full:true"] We have to calculate not only robs voting power here if his gets doubled that would mean seanny’s vp would get doubled aswell who still would be able to counter-vote alongsinde with hp and dg. [/quote] This reasoning is scary af @InJesterr. We're talking about **systems** here, and systems should be as human-proof as possible. One cannot put their trust in individuals when attempting to balance and build a system. Your reasoning here is that I will counter-vote; but I, alongside all of you, am a fallible human, who will make mistakes, will make bad decisions, and eventually, will fade out of the DAO in one shape or form. This is the case for almost everyone in this conversation. Whilst it is uncertain if the DAO's functionality will survive that long, it's documentation definitely will. Take a moment to forget the faces, ignore the identities at play, and look at this system as one that requires balancing. Good and bad players are found in every system, and yet, the system itself should be balanced despite them. [quote="HPrivakos, post:27, topic:20356"] # Doubling the VP from LANDs would give a clear advantage to LANDs owners. [/quote] It's not just this. We're so distracted at the moment; trying to tackle 100 different things at once. We lack leadership. We lack direction. We lack a collective vision. Changing the balance of VP poses a large risk, which can only lead to the community being more fractured, disorganized, and distrustful. [quote="web3nit, post:28, topic:20356, full:true"] You missed the point. I am talking about the whole picture, not short term. [/quote] From the perspective of the long-term, we can wait. We don't need to change VP now. I challenge you to try to repair bridges; and have constructive conversations about key ways we can improve our systems. Aim at rebuilding trust among each other in relation to the priorities of the DAO. Believe it or not, although we might be in the most precarious times we've ever been in as a community **there is hope**. ## Why is there hope? I get messages every few days from people in the community asking me what I feel about the DAO. Asking me if I'm staying. Asking if I'm leaving. Asking what I think, and if there's hope. You know who you are, and you are many. I know my answers have been negative at times, but seeing this proposal, and people's reactions to it (alongside the rallying of votes and thought-out reasoning) reminds me: There's still hope. There's still hope because the idea and vision of a decentralized decision-making system, where there's no central authority dictating the will of the people is still alive. There's still hope, because several of you, despite being jaded, tired, overwhelmed, and burned out, are still here, fighting on, hoping that this vision can be fulfilled. There are still many of you who feel responsible enough to open up this page, log in, think about these issues, share your thoughts, and have your say. I'm currently writing this message on my little sister's 18th birthday, whilst being on a family holiday, and I know I am not alone when I say my participation in this space comes from pure passion and interest. ## So, why should this vote be halted? We have far bigger fish to fry. This is not the time to change the balance of VP; this is the time to talk about vision, direction, and a shared 'WHY' that we can all hold close to heart. For the first time in a long time, I feel far more comfortable voting in the DAO, and a part of that is due to the delegations that were rolled out, and the minimization of inequity in our system. I really do feel we must be diligent in our decision-making; ensuring we're not distracting ourselves every week with a new proposal that can flip everything upside down. There are several governance ideas that should be prioritized at this moment, and amplifying the voting power of LAND/MANA/L1/Names/_any other VP Source_ is definitely not it.

Voting no. Let the free markets do their thing. If we alter the value proposition of owning land, I do not expect the land/mana ratio to stay fixed for long. Unless of course markets exhibit that there's no value to having VP...

You are an entrepreneur with a long-term vision and insight.

People should stop claiming that districts are dangerous and that they abuse their voting power. Managers of various large districts have commented above that they will abstain from voting Yes on this out of a sense of fairness. Together these large district votes could easily pass this proposal, no problem. Just because one district has a checkered voting past, please don't generalize this to all of us. I agree with the earlier idea that Land VP could be adjusted, maybe on an annual basis, to match the average cost of a Land parcel. It could also be increased somewhat without causing problems because I believe that district votes are usually well thought-out and handled responsibly. Demonizing land owners doesn't help. Ever since Worlds tanked the land market, landowners have been less involved in DCL and this could account for some of the decline in playership. Anything that makes Land more valuable and more interesting to people in the long run would be a good thing for the whole platform.

Unfortunately we still have the issue of Districts (namely District X) often ruling or centralizing the votes - given the shady history of this district, appointing them even more power seems like a step towards further centralization and control by an entity that does not have Decentraland's best interests in mind. Voting NO, although I would revisit this if District VP was handled separately.

I agree LAND VP should be revised so I originally had voted in favor of this. There's so much effort being made to combat "bad actors" with high amounts of VP that the DAO seems stuck in fighting these people rather than working on what we can actually control. I see no positive progress happening so far. How many proposals are we going vote for because we are to offset a particular person's vote? I fail to see how this is productive as we stay in the same place going forward. Changed my vote to invalid question/options for now.

Very good points. Thank you for your feedback. Holding LAND could offer additional rewards to compensate for the increased risks involved.

[quote="HPrivakos, post:34, topic:20356"] re getting their valu [/quote] I only mention this because looking at the snapshot figures you posted, the VP distribution ratio between Land, Names & L1's differ substantially. It is understandable that Land may be given priority when it comes to VP however the other two assets only account for %3-%5 of what's been given to Land's even in it's current form.

[quote="JasonX, post:35, topic:20356"] Many have minted names when mana was $5 how do we offset that? [/quote] It was 100 MANA, the MANA price doesn't change that, we don't need to offset it in any way. It's the same as buying 100 MANA when MANA was at 5 USD and keeping it for VP since then.

Many have minted names when mana was $5 how do we offset that? Well L1's do have attached/assigned VP now & there is no going back. If the Land VP were to be adjusted (increased) I feel L1's also deserve a shot. We can not compare those who have skin in the game with those who have Delegated VP's. In other words this is like telling all the early believers who bought into the promise/dream via ICO or Opensea Presale that they are less worthy because they don't own Land.

[quote="JasonX, post:33, topic:20356"] Dynamic model sounds like a terrible option. VP were never meant to be tied to the value of Lands. Same goes for Names & L1’s. [/quote] L1 were never meant to have VP in the first place. Names are getting their value in MANA, which is fair, you spend 100 MANA and you get 100 VP. If Names price were to change to be dynamic I would be in favor of changing the VP for Names, but right now it would not make sense IMO.

* 30M VP from LANDs * 33M VP from MANA * ~13M VP from Esteban’s delegations (he never voted with the delegating addresses so it shows up as delegated VP) * 1.5M VP from Names * 0.65M VP from L1 Wearables Now looking at this, I am leaning more towards increasing the Name & L1 Wearables VP. We have around 40K Names & 74K L1's. Lands are 90K and they receive 30M VP, the ratio comparison of L1's are less than 5% and less than 3% for names. I believe they both should & can be increased. Dynamic model sounds like a terrible option. VP were never meant to be tied to the value of Lands. Same goes for Names & L1's.

It seems to me that we don't want people to sell Land for Mana, or vise versa, just in order to improve their voting power. Mana and Land are both important, but Land should be about development, Mana about financial transactions, currency. I agree with James's idea that if were were to change it, it should be a dynamic model, based on the market value of land (floor, or average, or something). Our current 2000 VP per land is a bit below the floor. I would be comfortable with it rising some, but for now I'm also very fine with leaving it alone. There is an argument to be made that there may already be some market forces for exhanging land for Mana to get more voting power, and hence this 2000 ratio might be holding land value near 2000. That is an argument for raising it, but again I think it should probably be neutral, which could best be achieved by a dynamic ratio. Someone might convince me that neutral isn't ideal. (e.g. that if we make Land somewhat higher, it would help raise the value of Land), but then again, i wouldn't be happy to see Land being bought for voting, not for development. For now I'm voting no.

I am compelled to change my vote to invalid in light of the stats HP presented via the transparency dashboard, which I've personally checked. There's a balance of VP from both MANA and LAND voters rn and to tip the balance will bring more chaos than good. https://lookerstudio.google.com/u/0/reporting/fca13118-c18d-4e68-9582-ad46d2dd5ce9/page/p_ggos5z86rc FYI most of my VP comes from LAND so yes I am voting against my interest. My ultimate goal is the betterment of the DAO and DCL

After hearing more input, I changed my vote to NO. While I want to give more power to land owners than mana hodlers, it's apparent we have work to do before we are healthy enough to make infrastructural changes to the DAO. :woman_shrugging:

This is a short term disaster for the DAO. It will allow a handful of actors, which have in the past acted many times very badly, absolute full control over the DAO, which will let them to pass a proposal to again double or quadruple the VP value of LANDs if they wishes so.

You missed the point. I am talking about the whole picture, not short term.

According to the transparency spreadsheet, all members that voted at least once in the DAO currently owns: - 30M VP from LANDs - 33M VP from MANA - ~13M VP from Esteban's delegations (he never voted with the delegating addresses so it shows up as delegated VP) - 1.5M VP from Names - 0.65M VP from L1 Wearables *** - (19M VP (32-13) from delegation, but that can include duplicate from the above) And that includes an address with 11M VP from MANA that only voted 6 times in 2021 and another address with 6M VP from MANA that only voted twice in beginning of 2022. *** # Taking those into account we are currently at **27M VP from MANA against 30M VP from LANDs**... (33M VP from MANA, minus 11M and 6M from two addresses that voted only a few times over a year and half ago, plus 13M from Esteban, delegated from addresses that never voted so don't show up in the MANA VP list) # Doubling the VP from LANDs would give a clear advantage to LANDs owners. *** Doubling the LANDs VP value would give a very clear advantage to LANDs owners over the whole DAO. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FoV7TdMTVnqVOZoV4bvVdHWkeu4sMH5JEhp8L0Shjlo/edit#gid=928432197

most mana holders are purely speculative and have no idea what the dao is. This is a false equivalency and totally irrelevant imo

The circulating supply (tradeable by the public) of MANA is 1,842,065,057 out of a potential whole supply 2,193,179,327, which is potential voting power . Decentraland has only 90,601 parcels, each with 2,000 VP, amounting to 181,202,000 million VP. Even if this were doubled to 362,404,000 VP, it would still be far less than the MANA supply of 2,193,179,327, which represents the potential VP that could enter Decentraland. And also the total amount of parcels available for voting is less than 90k, u have to deduct Foundation plaza and road parcels too.

well said thanks for the input :)