[DAO: QmYABqM] Allow furniture to be sold as NFT's

by 0x76371e9898a949b98a79edf113ce7aa00c10dc55

Being able to trade furniture and to design really nice furniture to be used on buildings later on, or even on events.

  • Yes! Lets be creative
  • No! I hate furniture
  • Invalid question/options

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

1 Like

By “furniture” do you mean Smart Item Builder Assets? If so - I think that’s a great idea for the Marketplace. Note, you can import your own items too - info here: Import custom items | Decentraland

1 Like

Yeah… that sounds like a great idea… being able to design assets for the smart builder to sell on the market, and then able to use them on buildings.

This would be rather difficult to enforce: what’s stopping me from making a vector copy of a contract’s furniture piece and using/selling it as a 3D model in a scene without verification? I could see it working for more complex pieces (where they are identifiable and IP can be disputed), but for simple chairs or tables it’s hard to see value.

Also, when making a poll you need to use neutral options (ie: simple yes or no). It’s bad practice and divisive to use engendered language when seeking an honest polling from a population.

I have to disagree… there are plenty of furniture designs out there, just like it happens with clothes, and so there could be a nice business behind this idea for some people. Even big brands could be interested in investing to do a venue or nicely designed offices.

I’m not an expert, but I’m sure there should be a way to be able to make them unique, just like the clothes, might not be easy or straightforward, but I think is a good idea overall, although it needs to be polished and well presented.

The big difference I see is that we have tight controls around what clothing a pawn can wear in DCL. There are no such controls over what models/objects can be displayed in hosted scenes, so users could easily rip any furniture objects they want and push them to their own scenes without paying for them. Making them more unique wouldn’t really stop the problem, as if it appears on the user’s screen they can likely mine the model directly from the data stream with a little work.

I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, I’m sure plenty of people would buy high quality models (we do it all the time in the gaming industry); I’m just pointing out that it would be hard to stop theft/damages to the creator’s revenue for their hard work.

1 Like

Just so I understand… so what is the difference between the actual NFT paintings that are being sold on opensea etc, and then put on the decentraland buildings, compared to being able to design furniture, sculptures, and pieces of art and sell them so they can be used in buildings?

So how is it that people are buying those NFT (the wall pictures etc) and it seems not to be an issue for thieves/damages to the creator’s revenue?


I’m not pointing at NFT paintings, I’m pointing at the current NFT system we have for clothing. That is a system that appears to be working well when it comes to creating a safe connection between creators and consumers. Because you can’t equip your DCL pawn with a piece of clothing you do not own, it doesn’t matter if you can steal/replicate the piece.

In the case of NFT art/paintings/furniture you can easily rip/steal most pieces; you can also display them in your DCL scene without verification of ownership. That’s the main problem: even if you create and sell a good, any user can replicate it and distribute it for use without needing the NFT to prove ownership. At this point, I don’t see a feasible way to implement a system that verifies ownership of a model without taking away a great number of features the platform provides.

And as for OpenSea, they are providing verified ownership rights that users can buy and sell, that’s the game there and it is all backed by verification of ownership (you must own the NFT to trade it). In DCL we have the additional layer of actually placing that object in a 3D space (even without verification). This proposal is targeted at the implementation of a system built around DCL, which means we must consider that additional layer.

In OpenSea users are purchasing NFTs simply to prove ownership (which can’t be duped), in DCL users would purchase that NFT to display in their scene (which can be duped). If a user can simply download that object for free from someone who has already duped it and maintain the same utility as if they had purchased it, why wouldn’t they? The only additional utility actually purchasing the object would provide is the speculation value for possible resale down the line.

Once again, sorry if it is a stupid question, but how does it defer a table or chair from a t-shirt design, to do not be copied? I mean… if I see a design I like, I can copy/replicate it, I will then upload it to be approved, and either it gets approved, so I already stole the design, or it gets rejected… the same thing could happen to furniture right? so what is the system in place right now at DCL that detects/flags a wearable design as duplicated/stolen when applying for it to be approved?

The main difference is how you access the utility of the item: to wear a piece of clothing on your pawn you must own the NFT (which is created after passing various stages of community inspection), but to display object in the game-space you only need to write a small code snippet. You can easily see the difference in work here, to copy a wearable it takes a couple weeks and has a decent chance of failure; but to copy a 3D model it may take a few hours to copy the piece, a few minutes to institute it in code, and has no chance of failure.

But to match your point on detecting counterfeit wearables, we have very little in the way of detecting whether a wearable was copied or not. There isn’t a ton of policing done in the space and I wouldn’t be surprised if we had fraudulent content in DCL already due to the lax item verification systems in place. There was a fellow posting a helmet from Halo the other day which was a raw rip from a free model on TurboSquid, I’m sure he was not the first and won’t be the last to try to lay claim to other people’s work. We even give more of a pat on the back than a slap on the wrist to those who try. Hopefully that will change over time.

Allow furniture to be sold as NFT’s

This proposal is now in status: REJECTED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes! lets be creative 10% 71,044 VP (5 votes)
  • No! i hate furniture 0% 0 VP (0 votes)
  • Invalid question/options 90% 575,719 VP (16 votes)

I think that this is a great idea. I believe that it shouldn’t just be for furniture and that there should be a marketplace for HomeGoods and items people can put in their house.

Since you can trace back to the first buyer and where they bought the product from on the blockchain, you could implement a way to verify if the furniture is from a particular distributor or artist.

The argument that you can copy it and sell it on the market again is flawed because, with furniture in real life, someone can easily replicate the furniture and say the same designer made it. No one would be able to prove it otherwise with the right forged documentation. Whereas, with the blockchain, you can verify if the product is genuine and not and whether it is from the verified distributer or artist.

I could imagine it wouldn’t be too hard to implement a way to verify if the item is from a verified disrupter. Houses are being sold for tons of money unfurnished, so this would be a fantastic addition to Decentraland.

With the metaverse becoming more and more popular, I can see people renting out apartments to have a space where they can hang out with friends, and it can be their hub or space to work. They will want to furnish it with remarkable things from designers or artists as people spend more time in the metaverse.