Skip to content

Parameters for buying back LAND using DAO funds (PT. A)

PassedPoll

Proposal Details

Author0x8218…0d59
PublishedApr 13, 2023 02:42
Voting beginsApr 13, 2023 02:42
Voting endsApr 18, 2023 02:42
Snapshot#69388a7

Description

The previous poll on whether the DAO should buy back LAND (link below) ended with a resounding YES. https://governance.decentraland.org/proposal/?id=e62c2260-bdd1-11ed-8c13-518b5c1940be Therefore the next step in approaching this proposal is to set parameters. As according to the previous poll, a majority of voters who voted 'YES', chose 'Buy cheapest at marketplace'. There will be 3 polls to decide the parameters for purchasing 'Cheapest at marketplace': A. the ceiling price PER PARCEL allowed by the DAO to purchase from marketplace. B. the total amount of MANA that the DAO is allowed to spend MONTHLY on purchasing LAND. C. Whether contiguous LANDs should be given priority. The poll results will give us a consensus as such: There will be a price cap of '(A)' per parcel, at a spending limit of '(B)' monthly using DAO funds. Contiguous LANDs will/will not be given priority'(C)'. All transactions will occur at the beginning of each month. This poll is to decide on point (A). All terms are valued in MANA.

Voting Rationale

0x3670…c15BPurchase LANDs that are 4k and below0

0.025

8 Comments

daoApr 18, 2023

Parameters for buying back LAND using DAO funds (PT. A) This proposal has been PASSED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbfa6d24e6a061e9aea3447163fdfe045177dd40e)

daoApr 18, 2023

Parameters for buying back LAND using DAO funds (PT. A) This proposal is now in status: FINISHED. Voting Results: * Purchase lands that are 2k and below 1% 4,727 VP (31 votes) * Purchase lands that are 3k and below 8% 507,811 VP (9 votes) * Purchase lands that are 4k and below 70% 4,173,826 VP (54 votes) * Purchase lands that are 5k and below 1% 866 VP (4 votes) * No ceiling price per parcel 19% 1,160,657 VP (4 votes) * Invalid question/abstain 0% 0 VP (0 votes) * Invalid question/options 1% 9 VP (1 votes)

Existential14Apr 14, 2023

I do, but I feel we could start lower and if things are working positively, then the floor could be raised. I know it can be done the other way around as well, lowering if need be but would rather start on the low end.

3Point1FourApr 13, 2023

Hey Yemel! I was thinking to reach out to you regarding moving your proposal forward to draft once these polls are closed and we have more clarity as to what the DAO desires. I can actually formalise the draft and include you as co-author if u don't mind. Is there any way I can reach out to you? Perhaps via discord?

yemelApr 13, 2023

Thank you so much for pushing this conversation forward! As the creator of the previous poll, I like the approach of separating the different parameters before moving to a Draft proposal.

3Point1FourApr 13, 2023

Hey Existential, I believe the problem of affordability for creators has been solved with the introduction of Worlds with the barrier of entry being only 100 MANA. As to your concern about being a project that boosts our own floor, there will be both a monthly spending cap, as well as a ceiling to the price per parcel, so yes it'll lift the floor price in the short term, but would you also agree that if there's more parcels being sold than the DAO can purchase, floor prices can still go down. This also indicates that market forces will still depict the floor price that LAND should be at. This purchase proposal is essentially to allow the DAO to purchase LAND at what it deems as undervalued, for various purposes that can be agreed upon at a later date.

Existential14Apr 13, 2023

I voted 2K of less. This could always be reviewed and made higher if everything is going accordingly. I think anything higher will also cause all parcel prices to greatly increase and make it less likely for others to be able to afford to purchase any. This is rather similar to an NFT project boosting their own floor and could be considered market manipulation or dishonest behavior, which can harm the reputation of DCL. I think we need to be very careful with this. IMO

3Point1FourApr 13, 2023

Now from a personal view, I'd say that choosing "no ceiling" would be unwise as it would mean that we are purchasing LAND at all cost, capped up till our spending limit per month. It would defeat the purpose of buying land at "value".