Improved backpack-features This proposal is now in status: REJECTED. Voting Results: * Yes 91% 1,183,576 VP (66 votes) * No 9% 119,900 VP (1 votes)

I keep insisting on the same thing. In the last months, we have seen improvements in the microphone, in the market, in the chat, in the realms, MAC client and in many more places of the platform. All this without any member of the community having opened a proposal to improve it. This time it is an improvement in user performance, I still cannot find an explanation for the problem. If someone proposes for it, it can't be done, but if that improvement comes as a surprise... go --> "how nice these improvements that no one has proposed and that totally unknown people have made" Is there really no DEVS in the foundation? Personally, I don't think so. Very disappointed with the experience in Discord with one of the members. Greetings and good luck here to all

I think that is the issue for me, the assumption that the foundation should decide if and how to implement it. It's not that people with technical skills can only implement governance proposals, it's just that by the time it is at this stage, there should for sure be a technical eye on it. This is in large part what the governance facilitation team can do, ideally it is however, before the binding proposal has been submitted.

The only problem I have with this proposal is the fact that 2 slots feels limiting, but I'm glad to see someone proposing this sort of functionality.

I suppose that if a dao governance request is approved, the dcl fundation should decide how implement it (and if it is impossible, discard). Or only people with high tech knowledge could present dao governance proposals?

This proposal seems to have had sufficient community support in past stages, however, as noted in the DAO Channel of this DCL Discord by @MorrisMustang (https://discord.com/channels/417796904760639509/538106198419832844/999659014688362607), there does not appear to be a clear implementation pathway, beyond identification of the straight forward steps that one would need to take in order to start the process. This is fine for the Draft Proposal phase, however, the additional sections of "Impacts" and "Implementation Pathways" were put in place to ensure that proposals got to this stage had a clear and well thought out pathway toward its Implementation. Below is the implementation pathway included in this proposal: > ## Implementation Pathways > > Step 1: Develop a search for the backpack by name, rarity, or arrival date of the wearable. > > Step 2: Create custom groups of clothing outfits to change avatar customization (parties, different p2e or any other desired outfit). Compare this to the Implementation Pathway included in the Wearables VP proposal: > The Snapshot Voting Strategy for this proposal will be configured as follows: > > { "symbol": "WEARABLE", "collections": [ "0x32b7495895264ac9d0b12d32afd435453458b1c6", "0xd35147be6401dcb20811f2104c33de8e97ed6818", "0xc04528c14c8ffd84c7c1fb6719b4a89853035cdd", "0xc1f4b0eea2bd6690930e6c66efd3e197d620b9c2", "0xf64dc33a192e056bb5f0e5049356a0498b502d50", "0xc3af02c0fd486c8e9da5788b915d6fff3f049866" ], "multipliers": { "mythic": 1000, "legendary": 100, "epic": 10, "rare": 5, "uncommon": 1 } } > > A draft version of the strategy - which will be reviewed and can be implemented if this measure passes the binding governance proposal stage - can be found at the following link: https://github.com/snapshot-labs/snapshot-strategies/pull/606 It may not be too late to start working with the community, DAO Committee, and/or folks at the Foundation to see if there is a pathway for this to be implemented, if you would like me to work on starting that conversation, please let me know, and I would be happy to do so, however, in its current form I do not believe this proposal meets the criteria for its final passage. This could be changed if a clear implementation pathway is developed as discussed above.