- Decentraland Overview
- Asset Role and Supply
- Market Structure
- YearBull Perspective
- Key Risks
- Primary Sources and Review Scope
- Decentraland: DAO decision process and Token-contract versus DAO distinction
- MANA identity
- DAO decision process
- Voting power components
- Token-contract versus DAO distinction
- Risks and unknowns for Decentraland
- Key takeaways
- YearBull Rank timeline
Decentraland Overview
Decentraland (MANA) is tracked under decentraland. The local profile associates it with Entertainment, Gaming (GameFi), NFT, Metaverse. A recorded genesis or launch date is 2017-09-06. The source profile maps it to ethereum, polygon-pos.
Asset Role and Supply
Its role should be evaluated through network or product use, supply design, governance, liquidity, and trading-venue quality. The reviewed record shows circulating supply about 1.96 billion MANA, total supply about 2.19 billion MANA. It records no hard maximum. Supply fields may change through issuance, burns, migrations, or source revisions and should be checked against project records.
Market Structure
At the 2026-09-12 review, the local snapshot placed Decentraland at market-cap rank #219, with market capitalization about $143.90 million and reported 24-hour volume of $9.52 million. These values describe observed scale and turnover, not fair value or guaranteed executable liquidity.
YearBull Perspective
The dated snapshot recorded YearBull Rank #865, Bull Score 52/100, Risk Low, and Cycle Early. Rank, Bull, Risk, and Cycle answer different questions and should be read together.
Key Risks
Material risks include market volatility, liquidity deterioration, protocol or governance failure, concentration, and regulatory change. Historical prices, rankings, and classifications do not predict future performance. Verify contract addresses, network support, custody, and venue availability before acting.
Primary Sources and Review Scope
YearBull methodology · Official website · Technical documentation or whitepaper · Source repository. Profile and market fields were checked against locally stored source records on 2026-09-12. The live snapshot above may be newer than this editorial review.
Decentraland: DAO decision process and Token-contract versus DAO distinction
Decentraland (MANA) is best read through its confirmed project identity, cited system links and the relevant chain or deployment context, and separates remaining uncertainty from supported claims.
MANA identity
Decentraland documents its DAO as a decision-making system. In the Decentraland source record, MANA identity provides the appropriate frame for this statement. The referenced record, What is the DAO, ties Decentraland (MANA) to that supported context. It does not convert the MANA/LAND/NAMES voting power into an expected market outcome. Keeping that boundary matters because Token ownership and governance influence are not identical.
DAO voting power can involve MANA, LAND and NAMES. This second Decentraland fact belongs under DAO decision process, not under assumptions about price or adoption. DAO user guide supports the stated relationship for MANA. A reader can use it to distinguish Snapshot governance from look-alike assets and uncorroborated utility statements. That limit remains material while Governance processes and voting configurations can change.
DAO decision process
The DAO documentation says DAO ownership does not imply control of the MANA smart contract. For Decentraland (MANA), this evidence develops the Voting power components section of this analysis. The supporting record at What is the DAO confirms the point at the recorded evidence level. It leaves current parameters and some user paths unconfirmed. Anyone applying the Decentraland workflow must still confirm its chain, interface, and present implementation, particularly because Token ownership and governance influence are not identical.
The first and third verified facts connect Decentraland identity with MANA/LAND/NAMES voting power. Their shared evidence boundary is practical: What is the DAO and What is the DAO describe that relationship, while the Decentraland user must independently validate current operating conditions. The combined evidence cannot assure execution without delay, cost, or loss.
Voting power components
Voting is documented as using Snapshot in the DAO process. Within the Decentraland source record, that point anchors Token-contract versus DAO distinction. The relevant support comes from What is the DAO, so the statement must keep that source-defined boundary. For MANA, the fact explains Snapshot governance but does not prove universal availability or fixed financial results. That evidence boundary matters because Governance processes and voting configurations can change.
Read together, the second and fourth verified facts distinguish the role attributed to MANA from the wider Decentraland system. The evidence in DAO user guide and What is the DAO backs those limited connections. Nothing here proves that possession automatically delivers every right, waives eligibility, avoids queues, or locks protocol settings. The operative consequence depends on the live Decentraland implementation.
Token-contract versus DAO distinction
Decentraland maintains an open MANA repository. This gives Decentraland (MANA) the source record’s strongest verification checkpoint. The record at MANA repository provides more evidence than relying on the MANA asset ticker without context. For Decentraland, the checkpoint may be a contract, mint, repository, chain identifier, product page, or another explicit identity reference. It remains time-sensitive where Token ownership and governance influence are not identical.
For Decentraland, the mechanism and its identity reference must stay connected. What is the DAO describes the former, while MANA repository supports the latter. A valid project label does not rescue an incorrect deployment match. Up-to-date official sources should consequently confirm DAO ownership limitations before applying that mechanism in practice.
Risks and unknowns for Decentraland
Token ownership and governance influence are not identical. Governance processes and voting configurations can change. Those source record boundaries apply directly to DAO ownership limitations. The Decentraland (MANA) design may operate as documented while an individual user still encounters technical, operational, legal, liquidity, custody, or market loss.
A durable interpretation of Decentraland (MANA) is evidence-led and conditional. Five verified Decentraland facts connect identity, selected mechanics, risks, and verification. For MANA, time-sensitive addresses, parameters, legal terms, integrations, custody routes, and interfaces require renewed official confirmation. The source record supports neither a market forecast nor protection against technical or financial loss.
Key takeaways
- Decentraland documents its DAO as a decision-making system.
- DAO voting power can involve MANA, LAND and NAMES.
- The DAO documentation says DAO ownership does not imply control of the MANA smart contract.
- Voting is documented as using Snapshot in the DAO process.
- Decentraland maintains an open MANA repository.
YearBull Rank timeline
Current YearBull Rank for decentraland: #55.
Rank change (reference points).
Reading rule: lower is better in this ranking.
- 7d window (2026-09-29): #336 → #55 (up by 281).
- 30d window (2026-09-06): #680 → #55 (up by 625).
Cycle angle: If the line is range-bound, treat changes as relative, not absolute.
Risk placement: If it improves then retraces fast, treat it as rotation pressure.
Market access: If the line range narrows, access may be stabilizing.
Liquidity framing: If the curve jumps, check whether the cohort moved too (relative effects).
Practical note: a single point is weaker than the curve shape.
YearBull Rank is a relative placement score used on YearBull to compare a coin against peers within the same dataset. Use it as positioning context over time, not as a promise.
