Proposal for Different Catagory Wearables

This proposal divides wearables into three categories. Giving DCL businesses and creators the flexibility they need while keeping DCL wearables unique.
Pretty sure this is too much for most to read, but I’ve tried to make the graph as informative as possible to make up for that.

Community Creation and sale of NFT Wearables

Status of this Memo
This document specifies a DCL Best Current Wearables Practice for the

DCL Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for

improvements.

Most of these concepts are written to integrate or overlay with Proposal 1.

[1]. Introduction

For the purposes of this document, an enterprise is an entity

autonomously operating in the Metaverse. Using, creating or distributing NFT wearables and in particular determining how they will be managed in DCLs platform.

This document describes a long-term vision for DCL and other NFT enabled digital marketplaces who participate in the wider category of a “Metaverse” which NFT tokens are able to travel freely between thanks to the structure in place with wallets and addresses.

[2]. Motivation

With the proliferation of blockchain technology around the world. New NFT Marketplace projects mean an increasing amount of non-connected enterprises that use this technology to create “wearables”. A kind of token that can be equipped and rendered onto 3d digital avatars. Representors of the players who own them in the Metaverse. This document is intended to present ideas that can be discussed by the community.

Although among the community there is a concern about the fall of prices for wearables, it is most likely that these prices are drastically inflated. With some “Mythic” cosmetic-only wearables selling for more than entire parcels of LAND.

For online digital businesses to thrive on the marketplace I propose an alternative to the current level of items referred to in this document as “category 3” by creating two sub class categories of wearables. These bypasses long drawn out voting or approval processes. Allowing online businesses to move quickly and stay competitive.
If businesses in Decentraland have to subject their wearable to a long drawn out process with uncertain outcomes, then many will abandon the platform.

3.2 “Templates”

“Templates” for the purposes of this document refers to a special yet-to-be-created item that serves as a “blank check”, with restrictions, for creators to make a wearable-like-item. This serves two purposes.

  1. The number of wearables can be restricted and controlled with the release of templates coming exclusively from the DCL marketplace.

  2. The Sale of these items server to burn MANA, fund the DOW, and the dev team. Furthermore, sale of these items on places like opensea.io help boost the DCL Wearables metrics.

3. Wearable Categories

Enterprises that create wearables can be partitioned into three

Categories with three different levels of NFT representation.

Considerations: These categories could be SOLD as a customizable wearable (template) by DCL as a source of income. Furthermore, they could restrict the purchase or activation of these template wearables to LAND owners. While it would be an intensive addition to the current system, the examples serve to highlight how flexible these systems can be while still remaining profitable for the DCL teams. These templates could be sold for 1:1, or allow for multiple runs.

Meaning that in practice, the purchase of one (1) category template could be good for only making one (1) category wearable of the same level as the template, or the purchase of one (1) template could be good for the minting of twenty (20) wearables of the same level as the template. This decision is likely best left to the DOW . I imagine in any version of this implementation a “wearable editor” much like the current “builder” for LAND would exist.

I have also heard it suggested that to activate these templates another official DCL wearable would have to be “sacrificed”. Consuming the unwanted wearable to make and activate a new template. Thus, clearing out some of the left behind and least desired wearables. Making the remaking ones more valuable to their respective niche markets. Lots of room for discussion on this issue.

Category 1: “Drawn on wearables”. Restricted to low triangle counts. Other features such as emission (glowing) and transparency may be restricted as well. With no ability to modify the shape or size of the item. Creators can use these to apply images (like their Crypto kitties) to wear. A QR code, or a hand drawn image. Due to abuse risks, DCL could choose a toggle option to keep these from being rendered.
More restriction = less desirability = cheaper template. Not free.

Category 2: wearables offer more benefits. Perhaps a higher triangle count, and more room within bounds to move vertices. Still allowing users to modify and create their own NFTs without risking the community with CPU strain or client crashing effects. “inside the boundary” editing would prevent screen blocking or trolling.

Category 3: wearables **the first level of “true” DCL wearables. Right now, every wearable currently in DCL is classified as a “class 3”. NFTs created for and supported by DCL. These wearables would utilize the rarity rating system (unique to Category 3), and support the full range of effects. As each individual NFT would be tested and curated by the voting process. Additionally, these items could support special effects in DCL thanks to them being native to the platform. Visuals, emotes, special animations and effects. The imagination is the limit.
This would give the DOW the ability to forge partnerships to release voted in NFTs to the community on behalf of investors and partners. Thanks to the LAO. This would be the revenue that keeps the DCL project running and paid for. The DOW could also mandate that the DCL DEV team has the right to release a set number of items to DCL without votes. This would expediate the release of desired or needed NFTs.

Check section 7.2 under section 7. Conclusion for possible improvements and additions that make this use case more engaging.

[4]. Advantages and Disadvantages of category one and two wearables.

Category 1 & 2 allow for enterprises to represent and integrate their NFTs in their LAND, creating special uses for them via the SDK or future integrations of the builder while staying inside approved parameters that don’t affect other users or require extensive community voting. If templates required purchase for support, then this would still boost DCLs listings in other marketplaces like opensea.io.
Businesses would be free to create limited versions of category 3 “digital enablement” on their LAND by supporting programmed functions, access to unique areas, or on LAND items with their class 1 & 2s. Building function into their business, and incentivizing LAND ownership. These items also advertise for businesses in DCL.
Enterprises could share files between each other to make identical copies of the same model under different minters. All the more reason to require a template for minting. Without the ability to support wearable NFTs on the DCL platform, businesses will simply choose another platform that will.

4.2 “What if people make Category 3 lookalikes?”

This is perhaps the most prominent concern currently for the community. For a case study, consider the Acorn Knit Hat. “If an enterprise can recreate the Acorn Knit Hat (AKH) as a class 2 then wouldn’t it lower the value of my class 3 AKH?

The class 3 NFT would retain much of its perceived value thanks to the rarity system, “category 3” status, official minting, mint number, it being a collectors item from the official DCL team on release, and other factors. But any NFT that relies on cosmetic appearance only is a weak NFT. The challenge that will make some digital businesses in Decentraland rise above others is the ability to bake function into the item, and support it with services. Those services could be as mundane as access to a private area on land, or as complex as receiving a real-life item as a counterpart to that NFT purchased in DCL. From collectors’ items, to rare NFTs that function in linked game world, the more creative, implemented, and supported, the more desirable the NFT. Copycats of these items that aren’t supported because they lack the Data to make them work are at best advertisements for the legit causes they borrow from and at worst useless space in an inventory.

[5] Operational Considerations & Alternatives

If partial value of a wearable comes with its function how can we make sure function is added to DCL wearables along with content?

Commnity funded projects via the LOW - venture investors, or corporate partnerships allow for unique experiences and items to be made to support the growh of DCL. Funds accumulated also ensure the long term funding the DOW needs.

Are cosmetic only category 3 wearables worthless?

No. The rarity system, mint number, minter, and history of an item still give it a perceived value over lesser category wearables. The ability to examine an avatar to see mint #, minter, rarity would all make sure all cat 3 wearables were appropriately valued. “hype engines” like fashion shows could also be used to increase precieved values.

Why implement Category 1 & 2 wearables? Why not stick to class three only.

Because other platforms allow for user created wearables, limiting these in DCL means business are likely to simply move to another platform over dealing with lengthy proposal and voting structures. A month or longer would be too long of a wait for most businesses in cyberspace to idle. Waiting for their NFT to be represented somehow in their businesses, and walking out in DCL to advertise for them.

DCL Could remain a viable and competitive market without the inclusion of all wearables. I do believe that the trade off would be a very demanding curation and voting system. Building large incentives to sway that voting process.

5.2 Use case: enterprise and “counterfeit” items.
(How marketing strategies change)

Trimmed from this version. See “Corporate Partnership Process” section of the attached chart.

5.3 Copyright.
This memo does not directly cover copyright issues. But a case is to be made. As any sub class 3 wearable would be branded an immediate “imitation” or “fake” – does this violate copyright laws? IANAL.

[following 3 Segments trimmed from this version.]
5.4 Multiple votes (potency) per qualifying criteria.
5.5 implementations of the cat 3 voting system.
5.6 Potency of voting breakdown. An Example of the scoring system.

[6]. Security Considerations

Risk case: DOW incentivizes public voting with release of category three wearables. IE “If the community votes for X we will release a [desired] wearable” – to sway voting.

Risk case: If LAND users are allowed to implement unlimited effects on class 2 or 3 wearables ONLY on their land, they could create “crashers” that overload users’ clients to crash them.

Risk Case: Template owners could share the same GLTF file and mint multiple copies of a wearable to create multiple “forks” of the exact same 3d model. Its unknown how this could be used maliciously. It could be used to confuse customers and consumers. This is why the “makers mark” in section 7.2 is recommended.

Risk: Trolling with class 1 wearables.

[7]. Conclusion

DCL is currently poised to be one of the few digital NFT marketplaces that don’t allow for user created wearables. User wearables are an easily accessible first level of service for online businesses. These need not threaten DCL wearables. With the addition of an “examine avatar” tool, that makes it clear what is and isn’t an official wearable much of the market will sort itself out. Keeping some features, such as glow, transparency, avatar modification, etc. unique will ensure that Category 3 wearables maintain an edge. While allowing creators the flexibility that they need. The kind of flexibility that keeps people engaged and returning to the platform.

The more restricted and narrower the funnel for wearables, the more pressure to sway the system. Inciting efforts to skew or take advantage of voting on a decentralized platform.

7.2 Possible improvements:

“Examine Avatar” tool to check type, rarity, mint number & minter of a wearable.

Adding the dcl.eth.name of the minter who created the item to an item’s description. A “makers mark”.

A wearable editor much like the LAND “builder”.

A council of voters who possess LAND in the fashion district to award templates too.

Class 3 wearables that:

  • Deploy and create music notes when struck (on timer with cooldown)
  • Create weather effects
  • Can be thrown at a target area and create an effect (confetti)
  • Turn an avatar invisible for a short duration of time.
  • Play a sound clip.
  • leave footprints.
  • Making class 3 items “dyable” to change the color.
  • Loss of a “Run” for a template when transferred. This would be an intensive fix for a problem that might not need a solution. This is to discourage multiple transfers of a class 3 template. If a template could only mint 20 wearables upon consumption, and each transfer of that template to a different wallet negated one run then it diminishes in value with each transfer. Making it less valuable the more it changes hands. In the event that leaders of the fashion district moved class 3 templates to someone who didn’t win the fashion show, then each time they moved long the blockchain they’d become less valuable. Making them harder to store. The backlash of this effect is that they may move it on purpose to create “only 1” class 3 NFTs. Burning the templates on purpose. NFTs might have to be locked in contract, or returned to the DOW for replenishment or re-issue.

[8] Acknowledgments

I would like to thank, Cryptonaut#4219, Dr.Ankin#5259, ClarkKent#5236, FrankyNeedles#9330, Matty | dclblogger.com#1879, CipherWill | TheBlockRunner.com#0351, DCLblogger, DCL devteam, HPrivakos#4268, & The entire DCL roundtable radio team, “Joseph J”, “Corv”, “245”, “Marble”, “Arkon”, “Toxsam”, “CyberMike”, “SugarClub.eth”,

[9]. References

ClarkKent#5236 – Proposal 1.

Section [8]: “Dappcraft” / Denis Chistyakov.

Update: “Templates” Could be ERC1155 Token.