Thanks to everyone who took the time to read the proposal, vote, and give valuable feedback, it's really appreciated :slight_smile:

Limit Max VP accounted in a vote from a single address This proposal is now in status: REJECTED. Voting Results: * Yes 40% 6,996,059 VP (63 votes) * No 59% 10,274,639 VP (34 votes) * Abstain 1% 3,662 VP (2 votes)

At first, I thought it was a good idea, but after reconsideration, I believe that limiting individuals' assets can harm holders and the overall VP concept. There could be more alternative ways to earn/balance vp, such as rewarding vp for wearable submissions or inviting non-active vp holders to the DAO. Big thanks to Fehz and Gino for their efforts to improve our DAO.

It doesnt... all of this just sounds great like a dream but theres no logical reasoning behind it. Just wasted time and energy from the DAO and all of us now

Great thought. Looks like you spent lots of time on this. I would just Xfer funds to another wallet and keep doing the same with 1 extra step. I dont think I saw anything here that solves this... potentially rendering all of it moot

Hi @Fehz thank you for taking the time to submit this proposal. [quote="dao, post:1, topic:21078"] Draft Proposals [1M VP threshold] => 500k VP Limit. [/quote] I have been delegated 500k VP and to date have also accumulated 3,889k VP through names, mana and some L1 wearables. I know that it is a small amount, but that VP is very important to me. With the draft proposal limits maxing out at 500k VP my own VP wouldn't count, and I don't want to see that happen. In addition, I don't believe this will actually combat the bad actors who would just split between wallets anyway. For those reasons, I have voted No.

Simply "no" because this goes against the principles of the contract and decentralization.

it was a good experiment :joy:

Le RIP El DAO…………………….

One of the other platforms I have explored has an interesting way of awarding VP to those who participate in the game and some have more VP than those who own lots of land. They have faucets that can be collected and recorded on the blockchain, in this case, ETH Classic. The fee associated with making the transaction is put back into the DAO. Doesn't have to be a faucet necessarily, could probably come up with other actions that people could do and record onto the BC. This metaverse is also the most Decentralized one I have come across.

KYC will only drive people away besides defeating the fact of being a decentralised platform. I can't believe the extent our team are willing to go to in order to block certain individual's votes and trying to justify their actions as it's a good thing for the platform.

Appreciate your feedback! And YES, we'll definitely need sybil attack defense mechanisms if we want this to still remain functional in the long-term besides the mere "statement". KYC could be one option, but we should explore different ways for addressing that. And YES, I also believe we should keep exploring and adopt another system in the mid/long-term, at least for allocating resources. Although, this proposal represents a **strategical starting point**. Thanks!

I think the main benefit from this proposal is that it improves morale in the DAO because it *feels* like a positive step - it's a tactical fix to a small number of DAO problems. On that basis I can support it because it is marginally better than what we have today. However, the more fundamental problem to me seems to be trying to make sophisticated and costly decisions with a very crude model of voting that will always be prone to one form of corruption or another. And unless everyone is going to do a KYC, then there is no way to eradicate the ability for bad actors with money or technical skills to pwn the system. For example, a rival metaverse could buy a lot of MANA, completely send the DCL community into disarray, consuming DAO resources in the process, and even make a profit on the MANA - this proposal does nothing to address that underlying risk.

Here's the passed Governance proposal in case the team were too busy exploring ways to limit Voting thresholds. In a way it's like going backwards. Who is in charge here? "Moreover, it remains infeasible for ESTATE and Delegated VP holders, further reducing the risk" :thinking: Maybe I should cast another proposal to Decrease the current threshold by 50% which equals out this new proposal. As dumb and as stupid as it sounds, this will actually work :joy: https://governance.decentraland.org/proposal/?id=6760e1b0-65e6-11ee-8ab3-97eeb5bf5337

Vegas city is split across multiple estates for example, it would cost a whole 5 usd to send one estates to another wallet. This proposal idea is good, as long as "bad actors" don't decide to be nefarious, because if they do there won't be many ways to counter it.

It's the same thing, no need to sugar coat it. Since we have already raised the bar for Proposals with the last governance proposal on all categories, I find this initiative to be irrelevant and a waste of time. Either way that is dumb. Say I want to invest more money into DCL and purchase 4M Mana and come across to DAO to find out my 4M Mana investment only gets me 2M of voting power. This does not resonate well with investors whichever way you look at it. With this unthoughtful proposal you are knowingly & willingly devaluing the platform token ""**MANA**"" Period. Idea was to have those who'd invested in Decentraland, who believed in Decentraland make decisions, steer the ship. Help shape the future. By performing this act you are taking that away from those who invested, those who believed and were here from the beginning. It does not matter if they had Land, L1's, Names or Mana. Problem at large are the Delegated VP's and if you guys can't see this you must be all blind. Clearly someone who wants this should not be part of the team, perhaps Sandbox with their **Centralised** model is more suitable for this kind of ideology. 1 Mana is 1 Mana not 0.50 Mana Why can't you be a man and come out and say you want to block/ban certain individuals from voting in the DAO instead of punishing the whole community?

Thanks for your feedback! We're not proposing to limit accumulated VP from all wallets VP to 50%, we're proposing that no wallet could surpass the 50% of the threshold of a proposal. With 180K VP this literally won't affect you: * POI [2M VP threshold] => 1M VP Limit * Catalysts [2M VP threshold] => 1M VP Limit * Name Bans [4M VP threshold] => 2M VP Limit * Draft Proposals [1M VP threshold] => 500k VP Limit. * Linked Wearables [4M VP threshold] => 2M VP * 20k Grant [2M VP threshold] => 1M VP Limit * 80k Grant [4.4M VP threshold] =>2.2M VP Limit * Governance [6M threshold] => 3M VP Limit * Hiring [6M threshold] => 3M VP Limit * Pitch Proposal [2M VP threshold] => 1M VP Limit * Tender Proposal [4M VP threshold] => 2M VP

The only way to do that with "reasonable" costs would be to buy a ton of MANA and split it into different wallets, meaning that for flipping over a voting in a Binding Governance Proposal you should buy +3M MANA. This is just a first approach and a first step, we'll definitely need something to address the potential bypassing of this (e.g. sybil attack defense mechanisms).

Hey! We did analyze several options but I personally didn't know this one, so thanks for sharing. Regarding the Governance system, we've also considered different options to test but we're still looking towards keeping the system as it is without huge modifications in the short-term, just small tweaks/patches as this one. With that said, I believe a system like that could be adopted in the long-term, it definitely makes a lot of sense for projects with resources allocation. Thanks again!

We had a recent threshold proposal passed for raising the VP per category due to larger VP participations. This proposal in a way cancels that governance proposal. I have paid, purchased and collected every single VP point that I own and now you are telling me my accumulated VP over the years are now only worth 50% ? If anything this rule should only apply to Delegated VP's. It's taken me close to 5 years to own 180K VP and and already feel much less relevant compared to someone who has no skin in the game but gets given 500K delegated VP. Now you want to make my VP even less relevant. I believe this **50%** rule must be applied to **Delegated VP's Only**. Otherwise I will be voting **NO** as a long time investor, collector & holder. On another note, this proposal's 1st stage pre-poll proposal had passed way before Esteban's wave of delegated VP distribution. Although it made sense to users back than, you have to realise now that the thing are way different with Esteban's Delegated VP's & this must be taken into consideration. Which clearly tells me you or your team haven't even thought about. If it makes you guys happy, why not cancel all purchased/accumulated VP and steer the ship with Delegated VP and see how long the ship sails, before sinking into oblivion. **IMHO** VP Delegation has done more damage to DAO & Decentraland than anything else combined. If you want to do something constructive **Cancel ALL VP Delegations**. This will solve all your problems.

How can we address this issue if one is to split their VP among, say, 4 wallets that they control directly?

good prop @fehz i will be voting yes again

Resubmitted the proposal after a reasonable time have passed, prompted by feedback from community members who expressed that they hadn't been able to vote during the previous submission.