by 0x87956abc4078a0cc3b89b419928b857b8af826ed (Nacho)
This proposal aims to lower the current fee from USD 100 to a lower value. The objective is to reduce barriers for creators, making it more accessible while ensuring the curators’ compensation remains sufficient. This reduced fee will encourage more participation and innovation within the community, fostering a richer ecosystem. Additionally, We need to define a value that will still be sufficient to cover the costs associated with paying curators, ensuring that quality and standards are maintained, storage and DAO earnings.
Focus Point:
Accessibility: The current USD 100 fee can be a deterrent for many potential creators, especially those new to the platform or from regions with lower economic means. A lower fee will encourage more diverse participation.
Sustainability: A new lower fee will be enough to ensure curators are fairly compensated for their work, maintaining the quality and integrity of the platform.
Growth: More creators mean more content, which can lead to a more vibrant and engaging platform, attracting more users and retaining existing ones.
Rationale:
Fixed USD Price, Paid in MANA: The proposed fee will be in USD, payable in MANA. This approach removes the concerns around crypto price volatility while offering creators a stable pricing point.
Curator Compensation: A percentage of the fee will be dedicated to compensating curators. This compensation aligns with their responsibilities and recognizes the importance of their role in maintaining quality and integrity.
DAO Investment in Growth: A percentage of the fee will be allocated to the Decentraland DAO. This commitment reflects our dedication to fostering innovation, development, and the overall expansion of our metaverse.
Catalyst Network Support: To sustain the Catalyst network, fees used for primary sales will be directed towards supporting the hosting expenses. This ensures our platform’s stability and reliability.
If this goes to the next stage it would be good to see actual data and research to back the decision/idea. Not enough market altering decisions have data attached for rationale behind the decision.
I would like to see curation balance system together with fees reduction.
FYI @Nacho this is current gap between all curators, and it looks very unfair and already discussed many times as an issue in different chats (Slack, Discord, Canny, DAO) and all curators already agreed that we need balance system. I hope together with fees reduction we will finally get fair balance system, thanks. I’m tired to spoke about this system for many times already.
voted yes. While it might seem that lowering the fee would reduce income for the DAO treasury, it will likely have the opposite effect. By making the fee more accessible, we could attract more creators to produce wearables, increasing participation and generating more revenue by the end of the month.
Additionally, the current fee prevents many creators from making a profit, as they struggle to cover the USD 100 fee plus their time and effort. By lowering the fee, more creators will be able to break even and make a profit. Hope we can see in the next stage a fair fees for the DAO & Curators & Creators .
Just pointing out that people making profit has very little to do with the publishing fee and everything to do with user base. This invisible “barrier to entry” we hear all the time doesn’t exist if there is a large enough market for potential. I strongly suggest people do actual research and look at platforms like Nifty that have a free open market and how horrible their marketplace looks because of it. It becomes a pool of people just publishing so much free stuff that people don’t buy anything because they don’t have to.
I know this proposal is to lower it, but lowering it as many times as this community has eventually will lead to free. If you’re talking about actual creators and not just publishers, a free or even cheaper publishing fee won’t necessarily be a good thing long term. If you lower it too much curators won’t be nearly as incentivized because even the current rate is pretty stiff when you consider the amount of times they have to approve updates to wearables, trouble shoot with creators, deal with builder issues, etc. Think back to when this platform was in the bull market and there were so many new creators publishing. Go look at the forums and see just how many interactions curators had to have to approve 1 wearable.
I agree. I designed a couple of islands in Nifty and know exactly how messy their marketplace is. I wouldn’t support free fees, but depending on the next stage of this proposal, I could support something between USD 50 and USD 75. This could be good for a year or two, after that we can reassess the market and decide whether to increase the fees again or keep them as they are. At the end, it all depend on the new client that will be released soon and how much traffic and new blood will push in Decentraland .
Totally support, i think there are positive sides about the Nifty Island free launch approach as well, at least it gives some small creators more opportunities to test the market, or use the wearable just as freebies. so a combined wearable launching system would be nice. Creators can choose to launch their wearables for free or pay for curation.
And there can be 2 tabs on the marketplace, one for free launch, the other for paid launch. paid launch would have better quality (and may have some special tag or background color to make it different) while the free one can be used for giveaways or market testing.
Btw, i also agree on what nikki’s comment about the root cause of no-profits-for-creators, which is the lack of traffic. And considerring the client we are using now is not competitive in the market (even with the new client), i do reckon an efficient incentive/rewards system is needed for players to come back and play.
I am toying with the idea of making the fee become a loan instead, which would be repaid by the initial sales of the wearable. But I am not sure it can work out in practice.
Maybe something like half money down, half loan ?
