I agree with you, but I'm not sure that's what is happening in practice. This is the description on the badge: This wallet belongs to a DAO member that authored, published, and got approved by the Community at least one binding Governance Proposal in the Decentraland DAO.

Should easy to understand error messages be displayed? This proposal is now in status: REJECTED. Voting Results: * Yes 34% 1,682,793 VP (37 votes) * No 49% 2,414,728 VP (8 votes) * Abstain 17% 847,194 VP (7 votes)

Can we have a badge for "should of been a canny suggestion" ?

Badges should only be given when a proposal is enacted. This proposal will never be enacted as there is no way for the DAO to do anything about it.

I agree with this change, but this is not the appropriate channel for this type of request. Changes to the UI or added features are not governance proposals, and should be submitted through the proper channel. If we keep passing these proposals, we are setting a precedent for rewarding users with DAO badges for benign contributions that don't fit the scope of that award.

Many times I see things that are clearly wrong and I try to push it with the DAO to solve them, however it is curious how small inconveniences like this can represent such great complexity. It really frustrates me a lot when I get a message that doesn't solve my problem. I feel like the same thing must happen to others, but if it's not feasible I understand.

Yeah depending how far you want to go it can be double the code-base. Like if you're launching a rocket in the code it's going to double the amount doing error coding. I mean you wouldn't do it as the last step in that case but just a reference. The thing to do is make a list though. In those few cases where there error is something the user can quickly change if you have a list like that, it changes everything.

@HPrivakos just responded to this here: https://forum.decentraland.org/t/dao-231c395-additional-function-for-the-reel-camera/21786/4?u=punkpink @OGContraBand thanks for the clarification, I see more and more that solving this will not be viable today, other friends have also made comments similar to yours.

I put no because robust error coding is a huge endeavor. Without a list of specific error conditions and depending on how the code is written this could easily be a 1/2 million dollar project no problem. Every line of code has to be examined and every possible error without a list of specific ones. If in the end the actual problem is something in a JSON object - how can describe that in clear way. The best approach here is if you find a specific scenario such as wallet is not connected and the error produced is something like you've shown to handle that specific instance of error. Some times this technical error message is best to help the developers fix bug issues more quickly too. A much better use of money would be to revamp the procedure when users report real errors. Currently the procedure is as follows. 1 - try to get rid of the user with a quick answer like reinstall the client and try again - see how dedicated they are. 2 - accuse the user of being a liar and ask them to make a video recording of the issue. 3 - if the user is annoying and still here fix the issue if it's a quick easy fix. If the issue is complex and requires a good deal of setup to reproduce ask the user to do half your job by recreating the issue again and gathering log files which may or may not contain information that could jeapordize their security.

This is a Foundation thing and has nothing to do as a governance proposal.