This proposal aims to grant Voting Power to content creators in Decentraland who submit their wearables and emotes collections and have them approved by the Wearables Curation Committee, thereby increasing their influence in governance decisions.
Abstract
In recognition of the contributions of content creators to the Decentraland ecosystem, this proposal aims to allocate Voting Power (VP) to creators based on their approved wearables and emotes collections. By linking VP to approved submissions, this initiative strives to encourage ongoing contributions and acknowledge the creators’ role in the Decentraland development.
Motivation
Content creators are integral to the vitality of Decentraland, crafting the items that define user experiences. Currently these creators lack representation in governance. This proposal seeks to change the situation by assigning VP to creators, ensuring their efforts are recognized and rewarded.
Specification
The VP would be awarded as follows:
Content creators must pay a submission fee of 100 USD paid in MANA for each creation item submitted to the marketplace.
Once a collection is approved, the submitting wallet will be credited with an amount of VP equivalent to the MANA cost paid during submission.
The VP amount will be determined by the MANA’s price at the time of submission or approval.
The VP will be calculated at a rate of 1 MANA = 1 VP.
Should a collection be rejected, the awarded VP will be deducted from the creator’s total VP count.
Policy Implementation
This policy will only apply to new submissions made after the implementation date of this proposal if approved in the next governance stage. All past submissions will not be eligible for VP based on their previous submission fees.
Snapshot Strategy Development
To accurately reflect the allocation of VP for content creators, a specific snapshot strategy will be developed and integrated into the Decentraland governance system.
Conclusion
This proposal aims to ensure that creators are vested stakeholders in the governance of Decentraland. This change is expected to foster a more diverse, and engaging metaverse, directly benefiting the entire community.
Just in theory, if I counted correctly. At now there are 10,503 unique creations/items approved. If paying a submission fee for each was $100, and the current MANA price at $0.48, the potential total Voting Power (VP) that could be allocated is approximately 2,188,125 VP.
@web3nit thank you for whipping this up and being open to community suggestions/feedback! This brings to light a couple potential scenarios.
Airdrop for previous submissions
VP for any wearables submitted after x date
I know some people may be concerned about the previous submissions not being counted towards VP. That being said, if you get an airdrop, you will get VP from holding the mana. However, nothing is set in stone yet. I would love to hear more from the community about what they would prefer!
Edit: Depending on the following discussion, perhaps it would be good to put together some very rough models of what an airdrop vs VP will look like for previous submissions. I am in the middle on this personally. I think both are good options, have their pros/cons. I look forward to hearing what others have to say!
Edit #2: This also brings to light another concern, wearables that were collaborated on by two or more creators. This might be hard to track when it comes to an airdrop or VP. I know adding a collaborator is on chain (at least you have to sign a TX to add the collaborator). Do we know if we could effectively split said airdrop or VP for wearables that were collaborated on?
Good question. In my opinion, the distribution could be equal among all collaborators. I would welcome input from the Core Units and community members with technical experience to explore potential solutions and ideas.
Voting Yes because it could increase community engagement in the governance process and it could stimulate economic activity not only for profits from sales , but also benefit of gaining VP
I don’t think it makes sense to not include past submissions. Most of the people that have been, for 2 years, asking for this are people with a lot of submissions over the last 2 years. Nullifying those contributions is very contradictive to the overall goal.
edit: Additionally, I do not believe there is an easy way to determine VP contributions split between collaborators. There isn’t an interface to split the fee/earnings between two wallets. I think those who made the publishing should be responsible for negotiating/coordinating VP with their collaborators. I’ve collaborated with dozens of creators/games on the platform and I would just go to each one individually and ask what they want to do. I’d be willing to spend the gas to delegate the VP split so it’s fair.
Voting Yes to push this forward, but I think it would be good to reward VP to creators who published collections previously as well. Could be a good opportunity to reenage with previous creators who may have left this space. Excluding them may cause a wedge to overcome in the future.
Thank you, @web3nit, for bringing this forward. I agree that content creators, who are vital to this platform and in my opinion have been undervalued, should have VP assigned and it should be retroactive for any submission as Nikki suggests. I vote YES and hope this moves forward to the governance level.
Not against this, in fact, we’ve been trying to find a workaround for this. But right now I’m with HP, with the Gov revamp discussions running in parallel I believe it’s not a good timing.
Thank you for all your feedback! I agree with @NikkiFuego@friskybumblebee@DedHeadJ. I had thought that for previous submissions, the DAO could do an airdrop, but from the inputs, I see that it is more preferable to include retroactively as well.
If this passes, past submissions will be included in the next stage.
I see no better time than NOW for rewarding creators.
If the stake-weighted system will be revoked (which I highly doubt) or if any other governance revamps are held, we can always reconsider and align the system with the governance process. But for now, I don’t see anything that should stop the DAO from proceeding. (This is my personal opinion.)
