Should we create the Decentraland DAO Land Program (DDLP)? This proposal has been PASSED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)

I proposed this 3 years ago.. :+1: https://decentraland.org/governance/proposal/?id=de1d1e40-05c1-11ec-a4d1-8d5d2cba0825

Should we create the Decentraland DAO Land Program (DDLP)? This proposal is now in status: FINISHED. Voting Results: * Yes 79% 1,242,128 VP (22 votes) * No 21% 333,521 VP (17 votes) * Invalid question/options 0% 0 VP (0 votes)

This seems like a reasonable idea and hopefully you can take the feedback you've gotten and come up with something that can garner community support (and by 'community support' I do mean a yes vote from RobL :smiley: to go along with the max 2 million VP the community seems to have at the moment) Also, though, this is possibly the most hilarious comment anyone has ever left on a prop, and Jason has set the bar pretty high for himself when it comes to being hilariously unselfaware. 

Hey, @Unknower. Thanks for your valuable comments. Yes, the idea is to make sure the information is available. Then, when it comes to the "proposal," I'm talking about what you plan to do with the land. It should be something easy to write and shouldn't take too much time. Another cool thing about this program I forgot to mention is that it doesn't require VP, allowing valuable users that don't have many resources or friends to get an opportunity for deploying. I just hope this helps the Decentraland situation a little bit. Regards, Tobik

I mean, you do have a point. If I were to write a proposal to use this land, I don’t even know how much we have available, what is reasonable to ask for, etc… It would be far easier to just find people who put their land up for rent by the day, but aren’t paying attention to the platform, since you don’t lose operator rights automatically after the lease ends. I’ve been squatting on a 4x4 for over a year now like this. What’s the incentive for me, a creator, to even bother asking for anything from the DAO? Because I have some awesome ideas, I’m just not sure if I want to write up an essay and wait two weeks every time I want to execute on one. I don’t know if that means the best solution is to expedite the process somehow but I think we need to be lowering bars to entry as much as we can right now. Content is king. Nobody is going to come here without content. We killed the grants program for content. We aren’t approving grants to improve the platform because we don’t want to pay the money, or it’s cheap enough but just not fast enough (leaving little room for “good enough”). Or in my case, because adult baby whales just want to make some irrelevant point about discord moderation when someone is offering to build an *in-world* moderation tool. Has the DAO helped the platform grow in ANY way in the last 6 months? What is the DAO even good for anymore? Like, let’s pretend the Foundation disappears tomorrow. Is the DAO even capable of picking up the ball? Do we have governance committees draining money from the DAO to provide oversight over a process that needs less oversight than ever? If we made these grants twice as hard to get then we reduced the workload of these squads by 50%. Has their pay been adjusted to compensate for the lower workload?

[quote="Unknower, post:19, topic:22815"] wonderful proposal [/quote] I would like to see this proposal. Go for it. I'll be happy if people are actually building on DAO land. On the other side, why I'm against this LAND PROGRAM? **Its simple - few people are asking us to give them perms to operate the land as they wish.** Both DAO and the foundation have their own discord servers and social media accounts on different SM platforms. When was the last time those information channels were used to promote the free parcels and the way you can participate, fill an proposal, ask Qs, etc.? How the DAO is marketing this? We as collective have to find a way to PROMOTE the land owned by the DAO to valuable and creative entities which will bring VALUE to this platform. And the way is not giving right to 3 people to act as they wish. This is the reason we have proposals.

Hello, @CheddarQueso. Thank you for your comments; I find them really valuable. This is actually the type of debate we need 💯 I think you make a great point here, and I'm happy to modify the way the periods work. The idea of having a review time in the middle seems better for the user who gets delegated. I will implement these changes in the next one. Regarding the renting part, yes, I should find a better way to explain it. I was mostly referring to scenarios where a game charges a subscription for space (i.e., a hotel room). Do you have an idea of how I can word this in the next writing to be more clear? Maybe: "Land rental: the project cannot allow users to rent the land (or space on it) for money unless this is a feature/monetization system part of genuine content"? And yeah, will also be adding the reporting thing. Thanks a lot, this really helps, Tobik

We can barely get grantees POI stars, are we really going to nitpick this because we want to create more immovable barriers and red tape for creators? This land is doing absolutely nothing right now. We should test this theory that this is actually doable. I am happy to submit a wonderful proposal to build a community owned virtual venue and conference center controllable through VLM on DAO land...if you all want to watch it rot on the vine. Nobody is using the land so it should be no problem to obtain it for some temporary use, right? But I think we all know how it will go with the DAO in its current state.

I respect this as a good start to the discussion of making use of DAO lands. I don't mind trusting the committee to manage the process for the sake of efficiency and better execution. My only concern is that there is too much ambiguity in the requirements. For example, there should be predetermined time intervals/review periods for the land to be delegated, 3, 6, 12 months, rather than the committee suddenly deciding that there are more relevant projects and give a 2 week notice. (unless the project breaks a more obvious rule) Land rental is another area of concern "except when renting is part of a game or experience".. this is too broad... the circumstances under which a project would be allowed to rent the land should be very specific and limited. We should also know where the funds go. Lastly, accountability.. the proposal should include monthly or quarterly reporting requirements from the committee to the community and what the reports will include, such as what projects applied and which were selected, metrics or other helpful data for iterating the land delegation program, feedback from the community, etc. Thanks for putting this forward Tobik... I think it's a good idea.

Hello. Thanks for your comment. It's a form where you include the proposal along with other details. I would also like to add that the current program does not invalidate the use of the DAO. It just makes it faster. With the current system, no one is asking for land, and access to the VP is limited to a select few. Regards, Tobik

Under "Procedure" it states that you're filling out a form, but later in the paragraph it refers to it as a proposal. Is it a form or a proposal? Respectfully, I vote no so that we keep the current decentralized system in place. It's a little confusing to me that we'd want to switch to a centralized method for this.

Hey. As far as I know, the grants program cannot give the LAND the DAO owns. The only way you have is to go through a DAO proposal (which involves three steps and a lot of VP that most people cannot get). Maybe we could add to the proposal a priority for those who have a grant? Then, I'm not too sure where the 'bad precedent' will be as this is being voted on by the community in the first place. Indeed, this proposal facilitates new developers or members who do not have access to VP to start creating. Regards, Tobik

Hey, @JeremyBrooks, thanks for your comment. Here is my response: Yes, that's the current path, and no one is doing it. Why? Because no one wants to go through that. The idea that the DAO cannot rely on people for some processes only makes everything more limited. In fact, this DAO uses the opinions of individuals when it comes to things such as the pause or revocation of grants. Why? Because if people had to follow the classic DAO process, it would take an eternity to stop a fraudulent grant. A DAO can have centralized processes that have been previously voted in a decentralized way, and this DAO already has some of those processes. Anyway, thanks for reading and giving your opinion. Regards, Tobik

"I get it but that is extremely slow (poll, draft and governance) and most people just want to deploy and not write entire proposals." That's the path that everyone has to take if they want to have a project made possible through the DAO.

I do feel we need to do something with the land. I also guess I must have misunderstood exactly what you meant when we talked about allowing the community to use the land purchased. It most definitely should be made available in some way but from what I understood in the past when the DAO started buying land, is in some cases it would be offered to grantees that required land to build instead of the requests that included purchasing land with DAO funds. 2nd it would be made available to the community if someone wanted to request the use of DAO lands and that they would go through the proposal method. It's not necessarily anything to do with trust however, this is not how things work in a DAO and it would set a precendent for possibly other things. What, I cant say. Its all an experiment. I understand quicker etc, but the land belongs to community and they should decide who gets to use their land. Thank you.

My only argument is I have no trust in the committee :) I want to see a mechanism where the DAO members have control over what you and your friends can do. When and how you can give and take operator rights. Thank you for your politically correct answer. I appreciate it.

There will be no excuses. Please review the criteria for what is allowed and what is not. Those who do not comply will not gain access. Unfortunately, most people will not use the DAO to request access to such land, as it is not deemed worthwhile. However, this program enables us to effectively market the concept of "free land access." While I respect your right to express disagreement, I find your arguments weak and lacking solidity. Anyways, thank you for commenting and reading. Best regards, Tobik

> But it is not what we want: indeed, I’m doing a DAO proposal and following the protocol. If this doesn’t pass, we are not allowed to do such thing. Isn’t that enough to prove that we are doing things right? I want to see proposal for every single land. This way we will know and decide what happens later and insure that there will be no excuses, abandoned buildings, pink dil*os, political propaganda, etc. > Also, why not trying and if you feel that is bad, you later submit another proposal to block this program? I'm tired, that's why. > Again, I don’t see the risk of allowing this but I do see a risk on not doing anything and leaving the things as they are. You have to separate your personal feelings with the members with what is the best for the DAO. 1. I hope to see more people leaving a comment on this thread, so we can 'find' a solution that will change my mind. 2. No personal feelings. > Doing this is better than not doing anything! If not, our assets will be getting dust when we could give the opportunity to the community. Let the community decide.

But it is not what we want: indeed, I'm doing a DAO proposal and following the protocol. If this doesn't pass, we are not allowed to do such thing. Isn't that enough to prove that we are doing things right? Also, why not trying and if you feel that is bad, you later submit another proposal to block this program? Again, I don't see the risk of allowing this but I do see a risk on not doing anything and leaving the things as they are. You have to separate your personal feelings with the members with what is the best for the DAO. Doing this is better than not doing anything! If not, our assets will be getting dust when we could give the opportunity to the community.

Like I said, I don't trust the committee. That's why I want to see proposals instead of three multi-sigs holders doing whatever they want.

I get it but that is extremely slow (poll, draft and governance) and most people just want to deploy and not write entire proposals. This is a faster approach for generating content. Also, the idea of people being able to get land delegated for free by filling a form seems easier than doing a DAO proposal. Why not giving it a shot?

To be more clear. You have a project that needs land to build. Come here, put a proposal + roadmap of the project you gonna use the land with. Then the DAO votes, if this pass - the comitee is free to delegate operator rights.

Hey. Please read the proposal. The DAO Committee won't be operathing the land after it gets delegated. Also, what do you mean with not trusting? The DAO Committee is the only one who can delegate the land from a technical point of view. Where is the risk? You vote 'no' and who is going to do this then?

I voted 'no' because I don't trust the DAO committee, and this is the reason I don't want them to operate the parcels. Lands must be delegated (rented for free) after a DAO proposal.