[DAO:ab94aa3] Linked Wearables Redesign

by 0x87956abc4078a0cc3b89b419928b857b8af826ed (Nacho)

Linked Pre-Proposal

Should we restructure the Linked Wearables Category?


Proposed is an enhanced architecture and design for LinkedWearables to address client performance issues caused by low-performing API Resolvers and a simplification process for new third parties, from inception to maintenance of collections


After initially considering shutting down Linked Wearables due to performance drawbacks, it has become evident that the functionality is highly valued by the community and has a significant potential for expansion and adoption. However, the current model also presents bureaucratic challenges and can be cumbersome for content creators.


To foster greater adoption and streamline the cost and maintenance of LinkedWearables, it is necessary to implement a new process and architecture capable of adapting to the demand while preventing any potential performance issues for the client. This new model can also help improve the user experience when managing LinkedWearables in-world.


We propose the following changes to the current Linked Wearables implementation:

  • Remove the ThirdParties API dependency:
    • Enhance the URN already used for third-party wearables to provide enough information about the NFT item with a Linked Wearable associated.
    • Validate NFT Ownerships on-chain using a RPC Provider and the corresponding Smart Contracts.
    • Creating a new UI on top of the builder to manage Linked Wearable Collections
    • Fetching all Linked Wearables for the backpack using a new service that will feed from the builder.
  • Allow third parties to “Pay” directly to the DAO rather than going through a 4M MANA threshold voting process.
  • Create a migration plan for existing thirdparties.

External Image


Removing third-party APIs and implementing changes to the URN will ensure all NFT item ownership validation occurs on-chain, enhancing reliability. This model simplifies the onboarding process for new third parties by eliminating API development and maintenance costs. On the other hand, it establishes a mechanism to boost adoption among third parties and facilitates more efficient wearables management within the client interface.

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

1 Like

hahah 1000% agree. 3 Years now and my linked wearables for Waifumon, Decentraland Dinos and ApeCoin Armory Club are still not active in Decentraland. 1. Have to do massive campaigns sometimes 4+ times to get community votes. 2. Even when they do pass sometimes I have had Waifumon Gen-2 enacted but then you have people like @HPrivakos and @Tobik saying they refuse to do the next two and now has been months of delay due to abuse of power. 3. Then have to get wearable committee too look through them all and they have to deal with going through all there red tape as well. Never in my life have I voted YES so fast. I even volunteer our 3 collections as tribute for the first beta collections to be migrated. THANK YOU! @Nacho !! :saluting_face: :mountain: :heart: :woman_fairy: :t_rex:

1 Like

I believe curation proccess and curation payments for linked wearables should be reworked too. It’s totally unfair when one curator gets 10k$+ payment for reviewed linked wearables, just because he was fast enough (or his bot/parser was fast enough to take collection) while other curators got barely around 2-3k for whole time for approved linked wearables collections.


Hi, Aaron.

You are acting in bad faith, even when I’ve tried to help you multiple times. There is no such thing as ‘abuse of power’ but rather you not getting how the DAO works.

On December 21, 2022, Aaron won the proposal for adding Waifumons to Decentraland. This proposal had many mistakes, for example, he didn’t specify the correct smart contract address of the NFT collection but instead put a random wallet address. This proposal was wrongly enacted by a DAO Committee member around that time. This thing can be reverted by reducing the slots but a decision hasn’t been taken yet.

Because this light error happened once, it doesn’t mean that is okay to keep allowing it. The proposals you later published had the same mistakes. Your proposals are invalid and Kyllian is right (despite you thinking is something personal).

I’ve consulted with the rest of the core units, and no, the consensus is that is not correct to overwrite proposal details as this seems something that doesn’t respect the protocol. So no, I won’t do something that goes against the core values of the DAO.

In other words: I’ve tried to help you, but it wasn’t possible and you didn’t like the answer. But even more, I told you to send me a new proposal so I could review it for you in case you needed help. In other words, I’ve tried to be good, and I still have to read these stupid messages of ‘abuse of power’ (when it’s the opposite).

Btw, Gen-2 got approved a year ago and you haven’t deployed an API resolver that matches the Waifumon NFT collection with the models.



As we can see @Nacho is right. @Tobik saying they can enact the proposals as they have in the past, but refuse to and alternative solution is to no joke make a 5th proposal now to be again voted Yes on the community AGAIN! Where there is no guarantee it will even get enacted at that point again since may be a new reasons not to and could possible have to go through even 7+ rounds there is just no end in site. If they were truly were acting in good faith we all know they would just make the 5th proposal for us and both vote Yes on it Tobik and @HPrivakos with his main and fake accounts to show the community this was the final time so the community would know and we could finally be finished. But we all know and can deduce it is just a plan for them to try to get whales to vote it down so they can find an excuse to not do their jobs and abuse power as gate keepers.

In the end our differences aside, however I think even Tobik and HP will agree with that this solution has been a nightmare for us all and this is a way better solution. So thank you All for voting Yes!

1 Like

would really like to get @MakeAnft’s thoughts on this.


How would this work on the curation side? If we go this route and suddenly have several projects willing to pay the fee to create Linked Wearables, how does that work with collections of 1,000 or even 10,000 NFTs/Wearables? That is a lot of wearables to curate/approve. Will this fee help cover the costs of that curation or will that be on the DAO to cover?

1 Like

Hi! Curation will remain the same.
If we want to modify something related to that topic, we can work on another proposal.


Would be great @Nacho, because current curation process for linked wearables and wearables at all is unfair and should have balance system.

I believe curation proccess and curation payments for linked wearables should be reworked too. It’s totally unfair when one curator gets 10k$+ payment for reviewed linked wearables, just because he was fast enough (or his bot/parser was fast enough to take collection) while other curators got barely around 2-3k for whole time for approved linked wearables collections.

1 Like

That redesign would centralize the linked wearables on a Foundation-hosted service and remove all potential flexibilities offered by linked wearables.
All of that because they cannot figure out how to fix the problems on the client side.
Put a 1 second timeout on the API call, parallelize them and only call APIs for linked wearables enabled by the user.
Using RPC won’t solve all the problems.
What if I want a linked wearables that depends on 100 nfts smartcontract? (For example: If you have any other DCL wearables, then you get that linked wearables too)
You are going to do 100 RPC calls to get the NFT balance on each contract.
Even with a single contract, if you have 100 NFTs in the same collection and you get a different linked wearable for each tokens, with BAYC for example, you will need to do 100 calls to fetch them all. (getToken 1, getToken 2, etc…).
All of that instead of a single API call that returns “0x123 has access to linked wearables x, y and z”.

1 Like

Linked Wearables Redesign

This proposal is now in status: PASSED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes 98% 6,135,693 VP (63 votes)
  • No 1% 42,338 VP (4 votes)
  • Abstain 1% 16,696 VP (2 votes)
1 Like