If the problem you are aiming to solve is ‘access to land at a reasonable cost’ I would agree with @michi that you don’t need to build to do this. You could start leasing or sharing your land now.
For example, Vueltta, the artist collective I work with, is building for Metaverse Art Week and NFT Show Europe. We have been blown away by the support of Indie Village and Edifice Metaversal who are both providing space for our builds for free. We then needed a test parcel to see how the installations work under DCL lighting - @dax put me in touch with people in the community renting land at accessible levels. I now privately rent a 2 x 2 for $180 per month.
You could start an Open Call for creators for your land, launch a subsidised rental package for artists/musicians/designers, or run monthly creator festivals in the style of a Mr Beast minecraft build. There are so many ideas how big landowners can give ‘access’ - I’m happy to connect you to curators and creators if this is of interest.
Hi bay, thanks for the comment. From what I see, DCL is currently reaching some brands or creators that want to build bespoke environments. We want to reach a new, different audience, i.e. the middle market, brands/content/creators who:
Don’t want to build their own bespoke environment, but want to be part of an attractive designed urban plan
May not have the resources of the big brands, so want an easy/less expensive way to get in and experiment, explore, and build
Want the joint traffic of other brands/museums/galleries and events nearby
In addition, our plan still sets aside a significant number of parcels within the district for any entities that want to build their own custom buildings/HQs/offices/etc.
Yes, as @mdandrea said above these are exactly the kinds of scenarios we want to support in Nexus: providing cost-effective access to land and shared event spaces for creators and companies. With plenty of options for people who want to deploy bespoke builds as well.
We also think that a bit of urban planning and a common design theme can produce an area that’s more pleasant and “human friendly” than areas where builds are randomly packed side by side. It should also provide a neighborhood effect where people come to see what’s new in the area, not just with specific builds.
Thanks for the question, bay. Our source for this information is from direct conversations with a number of brands in the middle market that are exploring Metaverse activations, as well as from PR and marketing agencies that represent brands and artists.
I actually just spoke to two agency reps in the past 2 days here at LA Tech Week who currently steer clients towards Roblox and Minecraft because the experiences are more controllable. Both were intrigued to hear about Nexus and have begun conversations with us regarding potential brand entries into DCL because of what we’re building in Nexus.
I’ve also seen and read market research around more controlled spaces but also there’s research brands (low, middle and larger tier) prefer Decentraland because they can customize their space to represent their brand how they like. Not only have I supported research for the space but also spoke one on one with web3 studios in Asia.
Roblox has a low barrier to entry and the team manages a lot of the campaign, Decentraland allows the brand to have gamified experiences and engagement through event spaces that the brand creates. This is done either through an agency or team in the space or they have the option to buy/rent land (when users arent squandering) to have a permanent fixture.
Just returning to my previous comments agree this project has so much potential but why not give a % back to the community your charging and requesting money from?
Yes this boosts engagement, yes you have an established team, yes you have the resources, yes you have current revenue streams available and yes you’ll be charging people to rent space that can currently be rented.
Also just sharing for the community to see that you’ve also tried to drop the VP from the 276 land you were given to a yes on this proposal. Whaling in on your own grant shows that the land should be given back to the Decentraland founding team to avoid further abuse.
Yes, we are voting on behalf of the 61 Decentraland players who are district members and who contributed to the district formation. It seems completely fair that they should be represented in this vote, and not nice at all for you to try to disenfranchise them. Once again you persist in trying to smear our project.
Definitely review all the feedback on this proposal and consider the assets, resources and revenue streams you currently own. This proposal was a championing ‘no vote’ and I’m reflecting on the facts you’ve shared. To try and combat that vote with your own ‘yes’ to a grant you have created is unethical and one of the reasons there’s a working group to change the way VP is distributed. (which I’ve also tagged you in on the discord)
michi, the stated goal of the grant program is “to help sponsor and facilitate the continual growth of the Decentraland platform,” The funds are to be used “to help reimburse their efforts in community building and education, creating 3D content for the world, or implementing new features and improvements to the platform.”
More specifically, the Content Creator section says “Grants in this category help to support artists to create scenes and models for Decentraland.” That’s exactly what our proposal is focused on doing.
The grant program doesn’t mention or contemplate revenue sharing or equity arrangements. I don’t think changing the terms, goals, and process of the grant program is within the scope of what we’re doing here.
Sharing my thoughts here before I consider a vote.
What feels missing for me and this proposal, is the lack of community involvement in its creation. It does feel as though it’s built by companies, for companies. Community should always be at the core, because ultimately if the goal is to bring in more people to the platform and its community — and it’s community that is mostly affected. The money and brands/company will always come and go. It’s their business to do so. But community is what lasts.
Also the budget breakdown, I would prefer to see a more detailed budget specific to those roles and what they are building. Right now as its broken out, it seems as though its 56k is for the build, and 4k is for marketing and pr. And I don’t quite see where exactly this money is going specifically.
Lastly, have you considered, since the lands were donated, to give a percentage back of the revenue to pay back to the DAO? So that it could allow funds to go back to the financial ecosystem and help further the platform and it’s ppl?
The fact it’s so offensive a % be returned to the community from an already established body shows you’re not here to support the community. Why should you pay a % of return?
You already have the resources to build this project but would rather HOLD onto those resources and request funds. Then go on to charge the community to use these spaces you create.
I think if you don’t like the idea of ROI or giving back to the community it would be good to make the space completely free to use to help onboard brands and creators into the space. Including those middle brands that aren’t interested in creating. Then your ROI will come from doing the creative for those spaces. It will also be part of the “creating for the space” idea and not yourself.
Hi @ckbubbles , I appreciate your comments. This proposal is basically me as the district manager working with a small team of experienced architects and modelers to create what could be a nice new landmark and event space in DCL. It’s as simple as that.
The budget is simple too but it does show that we’ll use most of the funds to pay for the design, 3d modeling, and deployment of the buildings and other models, and then for the coding needed to bring some interactivity to the builds. We hope to engage some developers from the community to help with that. The small amount spent on marketing is meant to attract some outside companies and creators to set up shop with us in Decentraland.
In spite of the falsehoods some other people are spreading, I never said we were against giving a percentage back to the DAO. But we are in a tough position since we already have 50% of profits earmarked for the original contributor group. It doesn’t leave us with much to work with. I’m also wary of those proposals that advertise giving a percentage back to the DAO because it just seems like a ploy to buy votes. Not something I would usually engage in. But I guess it’s now a requirement for any proposal to pass?
I’d like to see those costs broken out if you or the team can present them that way. This is where I’m most focused on. Because there are plenty of talented people who are architects and modelers that could contribute to this, that would more than deserve to be paid for this. I’m somewhat wary when I see outside companies being the ones working and building big projects in DCL mostly, and who aren’t actively participating in the world — to see how best to connect to those that would be accessing and experiencing a space.
As for the last point, it’s never been presented as a requirement in any situation I’ve addressed it. Which has been a total of twice, this being one of them. And it’s been a simple question to gauge someones interest. I do not think asking this question should warrant such a response. We are building a new future of society and these conversations are ones we should be able to have openly.
Hi @ckbubbles, I understand your points. But I’ve been in Decentraland since the start, and LEDY has already deployed 4 builds in-world, so we are not exactly outsiders.
And I think I’ve been very open about our position on returning a percentage to the DAO (stating it over and over again, lol). In my response, I only disparaged those other proposals that use statements like “we will give X% back to the DAO!” in a pretty blatant attempt to gain votes.
I know you’ve been around, I def wasn’t questioning your time in DCL, nor the capabilities of LEDY, in my response.
Merely asking for a clearer budget break down per role and aspects of the build. And then mentioning that paying an outside company, even if they’ve done 4 builds, doesn’t equate to the amount of community impact that could be had — if looking for active in world for creators to help build a space that is for them as well. Because that could open up the space for creators, having considered their future uses/needs in the district.
I say this quite often with a lot of things, that we should be considering all who are affected by what we do or create, and if we’re fully considering them. This has been my challenge on a lot of projects.
Design, 3d modeling, and refinement: $29,000
Coding for interactivity, event management, and tenant support features: $24,000
PR and Marketing: $4,000
Buffer to apply to the above as needed: $3,000
As I said earlier, we hope to source the coding work from developer resources in the community.
For the design and 3d modeling, LEDY worked with a well-known architect to present a number of interesting concepts, and then did a lot of work to refine the Crystal City concept that we liked best. My feeling is that when someone does the initial design work, they are best suited to complete that work too. It ensures that the artistic vision stays intact all the way through. Not to mention, cutting out someone who did spec work on their own time, but still using their design, would be a pretty bad business practice.
If the project goes forward, we can provide many more opportunities for indie creators in Decentraland, in addition to the coding and interactivity work. There will be more demand for 3d modelers as we add details and features to the shared spaces, and when new companies want to create builds for their own spaces.
@ckbubbles At LEDY, we view ourselves as Decentraland creators and a part of the community, but I understand and respect your right to view us differently. We view ourselves as such because we’ve been building projects in Decentraland since January, have deployed multiple complex builds, and brought good PR attention to Decentraland in publications around the world (over a dozen countries). We have owned land and MANA since last December and have held on to them despite the poor market conditions because we believe in DCL and are here to contribute to it and achieve its promise.
Im vote yes. I dont think you dropping the vp for your owners should be a conflict. @michi there collective vp is less then half the proposal. I dont think thats them abusing vp. Maybe im weird but if was over 51 percent if be thrown off. My delegate hasnt voted i would say this tho. In another post you made it seem i was starting a fight with another person i do that but when behind the scenes someone comes to trash on a whole project over there distaste for one person. That speaks volumes. I respect you for being a OG. id ask you to consider looking at how much some the people in this forum spend and when they make new accounts to chime in for some debates if you have time. @SinfulMeatStick take look see what you think of this one.