Skip to content

Community support for a paid pre-check on linked wearable proposals

RejectedPoll

Proposal Details

Author0x895b…8fe5
PublishedMar 06, 2023 20:56
Voting beginsMar 06, 2023 20:56
Voting endsMar 11, 2023 20:56
Snapshot#fad0ce3

Description

the original idea was expressed [here](https://discord.com/channels/894658869391933540/894658869391933543/1072494077293121626) and was centered around the idea that many linked wearable proposals aren't actually possible for various technical reasons, so that community members often wait for someone with technical knowledge to give an "ok" before voting. My idea was to require a pre-check for linked wearable proposals so that before they are submitted for a vote, they must be checked by someone from the wearables committee who either gives a green light to the proposal or feedback as to why it isn't possible / what would need to be fixed. I believe this should include a small non-refundable fee paid to the wearable committee member for their time. The benefit of this is that once a linked wearable proposal is up for a vote, the community can vote knowing that the proposal itself is valid.

Voting Rationale

0x3670…c15BYes, introduce a paid pre-check0

0.025

4 Comments

daoMar 11, 2023

Community support for a paid pre-check on linked wearable proposals This proposal is now in status: REJECTED. Voting Results: * Yes, introduce a paid pre-check 98% 430,340 VP (94 votes) * No, linked wearables should remain as they are 0% 0 VP (1 votes) * Invalid question/options 2% 9,354 VP (1 votes)

CheddarQuesoMar 11, 2023

Is there a way to measure the success of linked wearables so far? How can we determine the number of users onboarded to DCL thru this program? I think most decisions about linked wearables come from the value of the collection itself and how it may increase the DCL user base. But I am ok with providing a way to check for technical issues before voting for a linked wearable.

ckbubblesMar 07, 2023

I think this is a good step towards maybe a reformatting or restructuring(not completely) of Linked Wearables. I think it's time the LWs mature. We've discussed some in the DAO Discord, that I think creating tiers could be a good route towards a new LW structure. One where how it functions now can still exist, for it's original intended purposes, but then open up medium/smaller tiers for different uses cases. Like phygitals, smaller creators, games, etc not just large NFT projects such at BAYC. And options to pay bulk curation fees, because I don't see why that shouldn't be an option. I understand for large collections, but when ppl submit 5, we could make it a deal 5 for [x] amount of $. And that could also open up lower VP thresholds for up and coming designers of NFT collections, requiring less whale lobbying. I def have interest in this category restructure as someone who does a physical art form that is also wearable in DCL(and much more future utility related to nail art), and am planning to create NFTs linking them. But right now, doing it manually is more appealing.

web3nitMar 06, 2023

**Linked Wearables “bypass” DAO publishing fees** for each wearable. **Currently Wearable Submission fees are the main source of DAO income** except inflows from vesting contract which I prefer not to count as an income. This poll is a good starting point to rethink Linked Wearables concept. ![image|631x500](upload://gbNt2dn64HCmZZjF0lRl1qLfywH.jpeg)