For L1, Decentraland has a DAO where people, part of the community, can vote and make decisions from basic signaling to executing an on-chain action.
Decentraland needs to scale and give a better experience to its users by using an L2 (second layer).
Users will interact with the same set of smart contracts like the Marketplace and Bid in L1, and new
ones like the upcoming store for collections' primary sales. Every smart contract which uses MANA but, not only, has
protocol parameters that must be managed by some kind of governance.
So far, DAO voting power is based on the user's wrapped MANA and LAND balance in L1.
This document presents alternatives on how to manage governance in L2.
Decentraland will deploy an Aragon Organization in L2.
Users will act as in L1.
Signaling and on-chain actions will happen as in L1.
A user creates a vote on L1 to change the fee on the Marketplace in L2.
The vote has passed and is ready to be enacted.
The vote enactment transaction will end up sending the set fee message to the L1 bridge. The L1 bridge will forward the message to the L2 bridge, who will set the fee on the Marketplace in L2.
A user creates a vote on L1 to change the fee on the Marketplace in L2.
The vote has passed and is ready to be enacted.
The vote enactment transaction will end up sending the set fee message to the L1 Marketplaces Management bridge. The L1 Marketplaces Management bridge will forward the message to the L2 Marketplaces Management bridge, who will set the fee on the Marketplace in L2.
A user creates a vote on L1 to reject a collection in L2.
The vote has passed and is ready to be enacted.
The vote enactment transaction will end up sending the reject collection message to the L1 Collections Management bridge. The L1 Collections Management bridge will forward the message to the L2 Collections Management bridge, who will reject the desired collection.
A lot of MANA locked on each layer.
Voting Power divided between layers that can not be summed for on-chain voting.
Users will need to transfer MANA between layers and wrap it before a proposal started.
Users won't be able to use all the voting power together.
LAND and Estate smart contracts along with their bridges should be deployed in L2 to be used as voting power.
Votes will be cheaper in L2 than L1.
Users will have all their voting power in L1.
We can have different implementations on each bridge.
Votes must still happen in L1.
Clear execution paths.
Do we want to have a DAO in L2?: No.
Does it work with snapshots?: Depends on Aragon releases. It should be alternatives 2 or 3, voting power should be in L1.
Comparison between gas prices between alternatives: Probably alternative 3 is marginally cheaper due to lack of checks.
Alternative 1 is completely different in nature and is hard to compare.
What are the use cases for L2: Use cases are similar to what we have in L1 (marketplace fees, collections, moderation).
Should we consider gas costs for the user in the decision framework?
This document doesn't take into account user prices.
We should wait to see the release from Aragon (govern with snapshot) to evaluate possibilities, there is not much we can do to make L1 voting cheaper.
There are alternatives for frequent voting (i.e. collections) using a group with privileges in L2 (committee).
Unfrequent voting (like marketplace fees and committee members changes) can be kept in L1, while frequent voting (collection moderation) can happen in L2.