Should VP be delegated in a LAND Rental transaction? This proposal has been PASSED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)

Should VP be delegated in a LAND Rental transaction? This proposal is now in status: FINISHED. Voting Results: * Yes, vp remain attached to the owner’s wallet. 93% 3,504,891 VP (65 votes) * Yes, vp should be delegated to the renter's wallet while the rental is active. 1% 2,100 VP (9 votes) * No, vp should not be counted if the land/estate is rented. 1% 2,109 VP (5 votes) * Invalid question/options 5% 212,094 VP (6 votes)

I agree! There are also workgroups working on this. It's just hard because afk bots can easy manipulate this.. Take a active work in this, and join the DCL dao discord :slight_smile: Lots of great people looking at issues like this.. But 100% agree, just difficult to make a reality without being abused

I agree that it should stay with the land owner. If they are ok with delegating to the renter they can do so or maybe it can stay with a DAO delegate if the landlord or the tenant are not really involved in voting.

There needs to be a way to earn VP by being an active player and owning and purchasing new items. If only rich people vote the main players will eventually leave....

Right now owners can rent land while keeping the VP, in that sense there will be no change on the incentive to rent out land (if the VP stays with the owner). But I'm changing my vote to **Yes, VP remain attached to the owner’s wallet.**. To prevent people for renting VP as @Klockmann points out. (Voting No will discourage people for using the contract at all, so no taking that option into account)

Hey Eibriel, I get your point. Adding value to the ecosystem is critical, but from my point of view, with the number of people just holding LAND and not doing anything with them, I feel this is a step forward. If we let them keep their VP while they rent, I think we're giving them a more trusted environment to actually start renting, having more creators with access to LAND and therefore, more experiences being built in DCL.

Thanks for clarifying. Sounds very promising!

The implementation defers the transfer until a tenant actually rents the land, so listing the land on rent will be free. The gas cost are payed by the tenant when they accept the listing and pay. The approach you define does work but it requires a trusted third party (escrow) to hold the payments and resolve disputes between landlords and tenants, the Rental contract fixes this without adding any trusted party, but yes it's true that it makes the process more costly. I think one of the issues with transferring the land that makes users nervous is not seeing them in the platform, but this is not going to be the case for rentals. Same as with Estates (where the user transfers their LAND to the EstateRegistry) users keep seeing their parcels in the platform (in their Estate form), here users that rented LAND will be able to see them in the marketplace/builder, just with different information/actions.

Im not technically on board with this discussion, how it could be made to work on the chain.. But just sharing my thoughts on the matter. In DCL Real Estate, we simply hold the payment of the tenant for 30 days. After lease period we release it to landlord. @Nacho If the landlord transfers/sell/withdraw BEFORE rental term is over we simply does not pay him, cause he knew this from the beginning, of rental. And tenant is not getting operator rights before rental payment is confirmed. But yeah.. not saying which way to go.. just sharing my thoughts on the matter. Transfering the land-asset to another wallet than the owner's **will be expensive, and a lot of land-owners wont rent their lands simply because of transfering.** But if we talk security, then **100% the best option would be to transfer the land asset to a security escrow wallet hold by the DAO/DCL foundation** - in my opinion. We're ourselfs at DCL Real Estate have a rental project in development where we also went with the escrow-wallet solution for best security. But im afraid with launching of DCL's rent platform that land-owners wont rent their lands simply because of they need to transfer their assets to another wallet... If DCL chooses so, it needs to be fully automatic and not controlled by one person. Crypto is a trust-matter... and a space with not much of it... So transfering assets takes some nerves! If we can make it, like the estate combine/dissvolve works today, with rental.. It will be a little expensive.. but works very well.

The issue @Klockmann is that this needs to be enforced on-chain. Without transferring the LAND to the Rentals contract, how would you enforce that both the owner does not transfer the LAND and the tenant pays by the end of the month?

@Nacho Would be best option, but transfer fee's will be too much. (And A LOT of land-owners WONT rent their land, simply cause their lands are being transfered out of their wallet) How about, just saying that rental will be paid after each month (30 days) So the tenant have secured his payment until every period is fufilled. This is how we do it today at DCL Real Estate. We only had one incident since october last year, where a landlord has broken a agreement before time, and this tenant got 100% refunded, and had 2 weeks of rent for free, and just rented something new afterwards... Nearly ALL landslords keep their terms when renting.. cause they want to get PAID! Im not saying which option is the best one to go, just sharing my experince as a middleman

Exactly. As @HPrivakos and @cazala said. The asset needs to be transferred to another smart contract (Rental Smart Contract) so that nobody can transfer it while the rent runs.

I've rented and sold 49+ lands in my time running Decentraland's biggest realtor, DCLRealEstate.org Only one time, i've encountered a tenant ACTUALLY needing voting power of my landlord. And a few times tenants have been interesting of POI's when i've guided them along. **I vote YES BELONGS TO OWNER!!!.** VP belongs to the land-owner. Rental is for business and activity growth in Decentraland, but you shouldn't recieve DOZENS of influence politically for LEASING 1x1's for 20 usd a month by landowners. Outsider's of DCL will be able to manipulate and get dozens of power quickly, for a couple of dollars. My personally opinion of rental will be, that when rental is possible for all - prices of 1x1's will fall down to 10, 20, 30 usd a month... And why should a tenant then recieving 2k VP per 1x1? Dosen't makes sense.

@HPrivakos @cazala that makes sense, thanks!

It does make use of the update operator, but it needs to be transferred so the owner can't transfer/sell the land after renting it until the rent period is over.

Thank you @mattimus, I misread it. I appreciate you pointing that out to me!

@Canessa Thank you for pointing that out! I think I overlooked the answers.

Likely because it prevents the original owner from transferring the lands or removing the permissions mid-rental

tbh i'm a little surprised about this in general - i had thought that the rental platform created by DCL was going to take advantage of the `SetUpdateOperator` function of the land contract, in which case there's no need to send your LAND to a smart contraact and the VP delegation becomes a moot point. It's outside of the scope of this vote perhaps, but I'm curious why such a decision was made. In any case, I'll vote yes to keep the VP with the owner, since as @mattimus says, they can choose to delegate as they wish.

Thank you @Canessa & @mattimus for clarification. Changed my vote to "Yes, VP remain attached to the owner’s wallet"

I believe the VP should remain with the land owner, who can delegate accordingly. If VP is going to the renter, there could be instances where users rent a land before their proposal to gain more VP. @Tudamoon "No" in this case means a land owner who choses to rent, using the smart contracts being created, will lose the associated VP during the rental period. If you want owners to retain the associated VP, you should select "Yes, VP remain attached to the owner’s wallet: The original owner keeps the VP"

Thanks Eibriel, this was my understanding too, but wanted to make sure my fuzzy brain wasn't getting me mixed up. :joy: :joy: :joy: I think if owners automatically lost the vp by renting, it would make it less appealing to rent their land out for owners who are *actively* voting in the DAO. For owners who are *not active* in Decentraland or the DAO, it would be beneficial for the renter to have the vp. Can we have a 5th option where the owner gets to choose whether to delegate or keep their vp? (Sorry Nacho! I'm sure that makes more work! :joy:)

What I understand: * No, VP should not be counted if the LAND/Estate is rented: Neither the original owner or the renter have VP. * Yes, VP remain attached to the owner’s wallet: The original owner keeps the VP * Yes, VP should be delegated to the renter’s wallet while the rental is active: The VP is moved to the renter. The "No, VP should not be counted if the LAND/Estate is rented" option exists because the land is transferred to the rental contract. So technically the contract has the VP.

Wait I'm confused.... The wording has me a little perplexed, maybe it's time for more coffee and less Halloween candy... I want the vp to remain in my wallet if I rented my land out, because personally I feel that I want to have the future ability to vote to protect my assets. Although renters might be active in Decentraland, I might have a more active interest in voting in the DAO. It would seem that the "Yes" option below is correct. *Yes, VP remain attached to the owner’s wallet.* To me this choice below is vague. What does "not counted" mean. Does that mean it's taken completely out of the pool of vp? Not counted by the renter? Or not counted by the owner? *No, VP should not be counted if the LAND/Estate is rented.* @Tudamoon @ArtReYou How do you interpret this? I feel like the NO option would take the vp from both the owner and the renter, and it would be locked in the smart contract. Going for more coffee now...