[DAO:mhhxonu] Should we bring BUILDING as a type of asset just like wearable, and make it usable on Builder or other Official Editor? Securing the rights of creator

by 0x9b3ae2dd9eaad174cf5700420d4861a5a73a2d2a (MetaGamiMall)

Back to the beginning of Decentraland, when Decentraland had just opened its world to the public, the most common thing we would do was build architecture, no wearable, not a lot of games. And, if we check Decentraland content now, we can still see the great importance of architecture in any kind of scene, whether it is a game or HQ or so.

However, what has been confusing is that DCL has not included building as a type of asset that people can trade on the marketplace. So why not we add that into the market, and the building NFT holder can deploy them on their land by DCL Builder or the upcoming SDK 7?

If we check the Sandbox marketplace, we can see that there is a fair Building type asset market out there. If we can do the same here in Decentraland, that can potentially drive more activities from the builders and architects or even developers. And it would be a great source to lead to the prosperity of the Decentraland ecosystem.

By the way, they don’t need to be a whole building, it can be a door or a smart item on the marketplace, but it needs to be an NFT that can be used on DCL builder (or other official editors) to secure the right of their creators so that they can potentially gain profits or reputation out of it, and have more willingness to keep developing good quality stuff. Otherwise, if the creator develops something and sends the file to other people, then this item will soon become public lol.

It is a good thing to open source resources, but we have to give this choice back to the creator to decide if they want to open source or not, now they have no choice if they want to do something like this. (at least no mature solution like wearable creators)

It makes sense this proposal might have some barriers to cross, but I think it would be a good thing to bring it to the table and have some discussion.

Go, continue the legacy of architecture culture in Decnetraland.

  • Yes, we do need it badly
  • Yes, but we need to wait and see
  • No, we don’t need it
  • Invalid question/options

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

1 Like

Im 50 50 on this. I know this would be a bonus for those who dont want to blender and for creators. Also another path for the dao to make money. Same time I dont want to listen to people cry when files end up, ripped, retextured added to or colored with slight mods. Especially in architect design and how vast it can be.

“to secure the right of their creators so that they can potentially gain profits or reputation out of it, and have more willingness to keep developing good quality stuff.” Just more on the devs and security team. I look forward to seeing how people vote on this one. I remember when this was discussed with some of us in discord. Also if i remember correct when I initially was building for sandbox the builder client authenticated my assets for my build to make sure I owned them. You want to force a build on DCL to read wallets to authenticate certain building parts?


Well, thanks for joining the discussion which is a good start. I think this is sth that’s gonna happened in DCL, I just don’t know when and how.

There can be a level of technology/operation barrier to cross that’s true, and IDK if they have the capacity now to deal with this issue now, I think it just makes sense to speak it out. However, if DCL can treat this seriously just like the wearable creation process, I mean with good doc tutorials and a support team, it would not be a problem.

For the second question, the ideal way in my eyes would be those building assets would be in the form of NFT. Again, just like wearable, there will be different levels of scarcity, legendary, mythy, etc. And again again, the owner of this NFT can directly use it on the builder, in-world builder or the upcoming SDK7, with a simple drag. (or maybe provide a way for a coder to source it via SDK, maybe this is easier to implement). Sorry for so many again, but just hope that building asset (a room or a door will also be considering as a Building asset in this context) can be treated equally JUST like wearable.

This way, we have more incentive to create a better asset, like a smart item. For example, an automatic door that will auto-open and close when people approach. For this kinda asset, we can create, and people need it, but there is just no legit way to distribute it other than spreading it over discord or Twitter in the form of Giveaway. So in the end, it make no sense to keep creating this kind of stuff, no sustainable way to benefit the creator. (at least not convenient like wearable creator) Also, some good creators might even develop some sort of architecture collection that people can collect, which would also be a good support for the variety of DCL economics.

Good to have this conversation, hope there are more ppl showing their opinions.

I love the conversation here. You’re right, building was the easiest way to interact with the platform back in the beginning, and I think maybe a lot more people experimented with builds just because there wasn’t as much to do. I’ve always wished we could “buy” a build and deploy it to our land. I create a lot of stuff in the Builder tool, and I’d love to have more assets to buy.

The downsides: I guess we’ll have to have the same sort of curation group as we do for wearables, to make sure that items being submitted will be within the parameters of DCL limitations. Anyone who’s worked with the Builder and a single plot of land will know the scourge of triangle limitations :skull_and_crossbones: Like Tengu said, we’ll have the same issues here as the wearables department has, so additional staff would have to be paid to approve these curations.

Ultimately I love the conversation here, and could this possible encourage more land to be developed in DCL with easy access to quality materials? That would be a HUGE plus in my mind. One more thing… I like that this would create more jobs in Decentraland, from the creators, to the curators, to the people improving their own builds for their brands.


The main issue is there is no way to secure/revoke the files after the NFT is transferred. There is no control over what landowners put on their land with SDK and something would need to be built into the platform which would require effort from somewhere. The moment the object is added to your land, you have access to the glb and any corresponding code. Implementing some sort of DRM into SDK sounds like the opposite of what we would want in an open platform.

I agree that this would be a great addition but this poll does not consider any of the technical complexity to achieve this. It is something I have pondered greatly because I do wish to sell SDK objects and features as NFTs but there is currently no way to revoke access once the code is shared and no way to initiate a request for takedown if someone is in breach of use.

MetaZone has created a working platform to do this and will not allow deployment of the object if the NFT is transferred, but It requires a higher level of technical competency and I am not sure how customizable it is for simpler objects like placing a door, it seems better for full scenes. They do have an interesting way of deploying the scene so the owner of the NFT does not directly access the scene code or models which can maybe be learned from, but would still take a fair amount of effort to build into the platform.

Would anyone be interested in starting a working group to discuss more around DRM in SDK if the poll is showing Yes?


You brought up some great points Mattimus, thank you… I’m glad the conversation is starting :slight_smile:

Thank you, I think you are right. From what your reply, I can feel the your demand for this change hahha. Literally every creator can benefit from this, to be honest. And this sort of feature will open the door for traditional Architecture industry, lets’s imagine Norman Foster or Renzo Piano or so(all huge names in the architecture design industry), if you invite them to come for an event, whats the best gift for the player? Of course, it’s architecture NFT asset rather than a wearable, yes, they can create an ARCH style wearable or a wearable in the form of architecture, but that’s just not the best case for them. The same for every other architect or arch studio, even furniture studios. The potential market here is vast.

While at the same time, you are right, people, money, and resources need to be put into this to make it realisable.

Honestly, I did not think too much about how to realise this issue since I did not think it could pass, I just wanted to bring attention to this topic lol, but considering the feedback from the voters, I think now we need to think more…

Eh, I just realised most of the people might miss my reply because I replied directly to your messages.

Thanks to everyone who joined the conversation. In this proposal, I just described the demand for this feature. I was just hoping we could get attention and let the conversation start. However, from the feedback from the community and the votes statue, I feel that many people have the same idea but just did not say it for some reason. And I’m glad we started to even just think about how to implement it.

Yes, I would support it if Mattimus could create a working group channel for this on our DAO channel and push this idea a bit further! I will keep supporting it. (By the way, I started the polled using another name Meta GamiMall)

Also, I don’t think it breaches the open platform idea. In fact, people can have more choices from open sourcing to giving away their scenes models to listing them on the marketplace, all depending on the quality of the work and the creator’s marketing strategy. In fact, it would make the system more comprehensive and reasonable. The point is, the building asset creator needs this option to get their stuff on the marketplace, do or not to do this will be depending on their willingness.

Again, let’s compare it with wearables.

A/ The creator can still edit it even after the item has been approved and published.
B/ the owner of the wearable NFT can only use wearable but not be able to edit it.

Why not the building asset? I think we should do the same with building assets. If a creator created a nice table, those who don’t know how to use blender or modelling software could use it with a simple drag on Builder or other DCL editors. The last thing they want to do is to learn Blender and edit it as a normal non-technical landlord. Even experienced creators can potentially save some time by doing this. Just think about wearable, not a lot of wearable owners would even think about editing it.

However, the creator of the building asset can choose to share their model based on his own willingness as an extra utility of the building asset NFT, and they can decide if they want to do this or not.

To be honest, I feel like a whole scene would not be in huge demand in this feature. On the contrary, the smaller things like modular buildings, tables, chairs, doors, and trees would have larger demand. (all of those will be considered as building asset in this context like i mentioned before)

The reason wearables work is because any time a user changes outfits, their ownership can be verified against the NFT.

To compare with wearables, let’s say you create a mythic collection of 10 items. To be able to install that item into your scene, you would need to download the glb and potentially sdk code and integrate it into your scene. The moment you do that, you have the glb that can then be sent to any other individual. There is nothing stopping it from being sent to 100 people and everyone putting it on their land and no recourse to have it removed.

It is the same as getting something from sketchfab or some other model marketplace. Once it is purchased, there is no check for licenses and any number of people could start using it.

If you add some way to check a license for every model then it starts to get tricky and less “open”, that was my concern, having some authority needing to validate all of the models that get uploaded.


I think when it comes to scene building, not everything needs to be an NFT. As a builder, yes it would be very very nice to make an income off selling scenes, but as a buyer I’d prefer to purchase files I can manipulate and customize over an uneditable NFT. I can already do this to an extent on existing marketplaces like Sketchfab.

Also, if you buy an NFT item like a smart door, would it be a one of one item that you can deploy only once in your scene? Can you duplicate the NFT item? If you need six doors for your build would you need to buy six NFT doors? I can see this being very annoying when compiling a scene.

I like the idea of extending the DCL scene pool and asset library by crowdsourcing and tapping into the creativity of the community, but I’m not convinced making every asset a NFT is the best solution.


Thanks for the reply, is there any chance we make it NOT downloadable but only usable on Builder (or the future official editor)? Only the people who hold Building Asset NFT can be able to use it on Builder, so this way, non-technical players can use them directly without downloading.

Actually, we have the Asset Pack feature on Builder. Would it be a good solution to make the building’s assets be used just like Asset Pack? Then the majority of the non-technical guy can use them easily ( And ofc they can set the price at 0 if they want to open source it or just share the models on social media), and those who have a more advanced demand for a scene can still look for help from professional scene-developer

Does it make sense this way? Appreciate the feedback anyway!

Hey, thanks for the reply, I agree with you on that not everything needs to be an NFT. But I think we need the options, so buyers can choose if they want to buy from the DCL scene marketplace or from sketch fab. So even if DCL published this feature, i think not all of the scenes will be in the form of NFT assets, but I think there would be the need for that if those NFT assets can be directly use on Builder and cannot be downloaded, so to maintain their scarcity value like a wearable asset.

So we can assume two cases:

  1. A buyer who got a helper from a modeller or he is a modeller himself, then he can go to sketchfab to download what he wants whether its a furniture or a tree.
  2. A buyer who is not a modeller and doesn’t want to hire anyone to adjust the model for him (the normal people just want some fun and just want to use Builder) can just buy the model on DCL marketplace and drag it into his scene with Builder.

So, I think both cases make sense. And tbh, i think in order to expand DCL scene system, we nee more non-technical normal people who can only use Builder, then we might need more high-quality ready-to-use Building Asset (door, wall, modular house) to choose from the DCL marketplace and use them with the Builder (or future version of official DCL editor)

And once you have one door NFT, for example, it will pop up on your Builder Asset Pack, and you can use it as many times as you want. (its pretty similar to what you can do now with the current Builder Asset Pack)

Does this make better sense to you? just brainstroming

Should we bring BUILDING as a type of asset just like wearable, and make it usable on Builder or other Official Editor? Securing the rights of creator.

This proposal is now in status: FINISHED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes, we do need it badly 61% 2,012,241 VP (58 votes)
  • Yes, but we need to wait and see 3% 134,383 VP (8 votes)
  • No, we don’t need it 36% 1,240,369 VP (5 votes)
  • Invalid question/options 0% 0 VP (0 votes)

Should we bring BUILDING as a type of asset just like wearable, and make it usable on Builder or other Official Editor? Securing the rights of creator.

This proposal has been PASSED by a DAO Committee Member (0xfe91c0c482e09600f2d1dbca10fd705bc6de60bc)