by 0xb5cde1c5b905892cf0873cc43fddb56c1738888f (Rednitrous18)
The new Wearable builder has been announced and with it the details for how collections get approved and minted. Introducing the Wearables Editor | Decentraland
Early on in the discussion of the wearable builder the Decentraland foundation said the new collections would go through a committee and a DAO vote before being able to be minted. This was to make sure the Wearables were compatible and able to work in world as well as having a quality control to make sure the collection was wanted in world ny the community.
Now they have removed the DAO Vote from the process.
Without a vote by the community the ecosystem will be flooded by collections of wearables. Some issues that could arise from a lack of quality control and moderation:
Low effort wearables (single image on a plane t-shirt)
wearables with no community interest
Major drop in value for all wearables
flooded marketplace with low demand
Artist should be able to express their creativity and fashion without destroying or disrupting the ecosystem. There also should be interest for new collections and not just collections being minted because one person wants a shirt or other wearable.
Fees for minting a collection can only do so much for moderation. If anything it only prices out artist.
So I call for a vote on whether or not new wearable collections should have a DAO vote before being minted.
Happy to hear feedback or other ideas on the forum as there is always more ways to solve an issue.
I’m concerned about this issue from several perspectives. I have posted these on several discords but will contribute them here as well.
If I’m concerned about keeping a consistent aesthetic, which I am, artists/brands are no better or worse equipped than the DAO. I don’t think the collective DAO has a unique aesthetic taste better than an individual artist or team.
If I’m concerned about scarcity and depressing the value of wearables, publishers have an incentive to publish scarcely, given the proposed minting fee. Furthermore, good fashion is always scarce thanks to trends and shifting tastes. Furthermore, a robust market of wearables is accessible at every price point like real world clothing, and this accessibility expands the market by bringing in new consumers.
If I’m concerned about philosophy, one of the core ideas of Decentraland is that people can come in and make it their own. If the DAO can veto users’ most prominent and accessible self expression, wearables, that is in conflict with this expression philosophy. Some citizens want to make a cool cape for themselves and that seems like an important part of the metaverse.
If I’m concerned about big brands exploiting the wearable market or artists making “low-effort” wearables as a cash grab, no brand can match the funding power or talent deployable by the DAO. Appropriate and exciting wearables can always be generated by the DAO. Filtering and sorting is solved through a UI—you can just filter out big brands or artists without a connection to the community if you’d like, as an individual. Furthermore, brands do help expose Decentraland to a larger audience.
If I’m concerned about precedent, which I am: Who is doing the moderation work as the DAO under this proposal? If there is pre-minting moderation work to be done, it will have to be at scale, which means paying people to execute work on behalf of the DAO or incentivizing community members to do work as the DAO (this proposal).
In contrast to this proposal, a committee could be paid appropriately by the DAO and is easily auditable. This proposal for DAO approval at scale requires work without a direct incentive for the DAO members doing the work. If only a few people are interested in moderating the x wearables (1+, 100+, 1000+) submitted every day, the DAO would be acting as an unpaid hidden committee, and only people in the community interested in controlling the wearables would have an incentive to do this labor. This may set a precedent for other moderation activities, where the DAO acts as a veil over non-diverse interests within MANA. This may be good or bad, depending on what you care about.
Interested in continuing this discussion. Would particularly like to hear more about the various effects on the wearables economy and its participants—including investors, consumers, and creators.