Enhancing Exodus: Goodbye World - Transition to SDK7 and New Game Features This proposal is now in status: REJECTED. Voting Results: * Yes 29% 2,199,349 VP (67 votes) * No 45% 3,270,814 VP (35 votes) * Abstain 26% 1,954,091 VP (13 votes)

I agree with Lastraum. There is plenty of support for migration and I believe it sets a bad precedent for this and future updates. Decentraland is and will be under construction for a while.

Is the DAO going to refund us for our NFT swords? This is like when they deleted all the herb plants experience, levels passed in the contra band farm. This sword was going to the moon 

No one has said anything to me, I do my due diligence and based on so many games failing I have voted no. I personally and without guidance have started to question whether some games are failing because there might be lack of support from the Foundation. I will no longer engage with you as you only have a negative thought around my voting. I am also unsure about your game BUT not necessarily because of anything that you have done but again maybe there needs to be more guidance and support from the Leaders.

So your voting no just because someone said something about you, and dont judge proposals on how they are written and promise to deliver. Sounds like a you problem and proofs again that you are not responsible once again.

Decentraland needs engaging content like this, and I would be more inclined to vote yes if it did not include the sdk7 migration line item

Hey @Skazi, I hope you are doing well! I have also voted no but for me it is because I have a notion that I SHOULD be voting NO specifically because of wasteful spending by people who have scammed the DAO. I am starting to rethink the "let's not spend at all around games but want to become better educated by people who are much more knowledgeable around gaming/building than I am. Personally, I am not a gamer, but I do enjoy some of the games in DCL. You have a very strong opinion around this game, and I always respected your opinion during a hardship that we both shared with THO's. Can you please help me better understand why you are voting no? I don't know the person behind this game and am not sure that I share the opinion that they are wasting funds but maybe just trying to build in a terrible environment which seems to have a lack of platform support from the Foundation. I don't know but your opinion or any other is appreciated. :purple_heart:

100k :joy: :joy: No! Again! on wasting funds a trash game that has no impact at all.

I agree I was so sad when my 420 and money was deleted and the blunt farm game got deleted. Driving around Dealer Zone was fun selling to those locals. I miss shooting those robots and decentrolterds. Did you see Monster hall is disabled? IMO monster hall was the best made for DCL yet hours of gameplay and it's 3D battle which is what can bring the most players / highest market value.

Solid yes. At this point there's only a couple games that actually work with several broken on the very first steps. If we want to talk bots we have some of the 'top' games that don't even work yet 20 people are hanging out in them. I've played Exodus 2 different multi-hour sessions at this point everything works. It's a nice game with a lot of functionality. Exodus excels in 2D UI with the best design I've seen. I see a lot of folks struggling with 2D UI which is lacking in documentation. I hope for the 100k the team can provide some documentation for the public documentation library for 2D UI then maybe some of the games that are broke can use the documentation and fix their stuff. It's one area I've struggled with too I've had ugly 2D UI but at least it worked. Utils library is not yet converted did yall take that into account? 100k seems reasonable for multi-person team for 6 months. You can see some people are clueless 100k for a software project is nothing. If DCL keeps losing projects it will be over. You can see this platform is a software product that doesn't value developers, respect the profession/industry. It is disturbing that people are voting against this without even playing the game some. Feels like this platform is being purposely destroyed and looted to me. Monester hall, blunt farmer, robot apocalypse, Dealer Zone, DecentralTerdSlayers, Doo doo space launch - so many good game products are gone this platform is fading.

If someone has a request they do not need to discuss anywhere, if that request leads to a bigger discussion needed in the discord then yea the people that partake there discuss away but this is an equal opportunity to access system that's decided by voting. This isn't the place anymore, we are adding nothing to this thread. Feel free to dm me.

actually, yes, these types of infrastructure changes and considerations for migration funds NEED to be discussed in the dao. these shouldn't be one off decisions - my opinion is there needs to be a system in place. and if the consense is that it should continue as is and not have a system in place, then at least the wider discussion was made. suggesting otherwise is ignorance.

Never said you did man, anyways the dao vote is equal access opportunity for everyone and anyone not yes to everyone or no one. Nothing needs to be discussed with anyone first, you can't expect people to care for a discussion in a discord server first when here is the place that ideas are made and discussions are had about those opportunities. The discord server is like a broken condom.

i never compared who has done what for decentraland; we can go down that route with many different individuals, and people, and entities, but you haven't been here long enough to know some of long time developer groups/people in the space. But i digress. you can have your vote, and i would like to see more gaming in decentraland; im just raising concerns about the current process for projects requesting migration funds and that it should be discussed with the dao community first.

hello again, you do realise when I voted yes on this grant request it wasn't just a blind pick due to it being a decent game. Or that it's birthed from one single entity that has onboarded the most people, gave out the most nfts, published the most nfts and based his whole likeness in decentraland. No one single person has done that much. I digress. I voted because I understand the request and have formed an opinion as someone who actually plays dcl.

You do realize the rest of their grant request roadmap requires it to be sdk7 right? So it’s inherent that the project needs to upgrade to sdk7. My whole point exactly why it shouldn’t be specifically funded like this.

I understand what we say are opinions but It's literally down to a vote, It's not a no one gets it or everyone gets it thing. This is a dao with a free right to vote. Your alternatives are interesting but not everyone is able to commit then hope to get funding. Anyways, thank you for the conversation.

This isn't to fud someone's project. I mentioned nothing else about the grant request. I am being very direct in my statements. No one should get sdk7 migration funds. If that's the case, then everyone should. However, I've suggested alternatives to how we could possibly approach migrations and costs associated to it with DAO funds.

Although I like the idea not everyone is in the same position to allow this which means ultimately EVERYTHING comes down to the vote and that is where the gatekeeping is, not the access to opportunity. But yep we for sure all have a say! Also here funding can get paused if the amount of output is not up to par, it's not a risk to allow opportunity when there's measures against no output. I don't get why these things are issues now and here with this specific request. You're talking against the way funding has always been done here but using it against this specific ask. Peach to a wider audience not try fud someone else's opportunity to ask.

Please, take this to any real world scenario. Here's a simple one. - Renovating a house (upgrades) When you hire a contractor, they say "it will cost $15,000 for your kitchen" - do you get a second opinion? do you ask for an itemized list of cost breakdown including labor + materials? this above scenario would be akin to going in front of a technical review team first to vet the time and cost required for the upgrade (migration). Also, once agreed upon the SOW (scope of work) for your contractor, do you just give them $15,000 up front and hope they do the work? Or do you pay them in installments as the work is complete? this scenario highlights not paying for work until its complete or paying for the work as you go to make sure it's done properly. This isn't rocket science. Common sense should not be thrown out the window just because this is a metaverse and we all have a say in it.

I've already mentioned a way to use DAO voting for migration funds -> 1) once the migration is complete 2) a technical group reviews the workload required and potential funds required (you even alluded to an agreement on this in your first reply to me) But the way this is currently structured is not good and should not be implemented. SDK7 migration funds should not be given out prior to the migration and/or a technical review.

I have talked about ways to combat what you mentioned multiple times with vp whales ect. But thanks for your assumption of MY viewpoint :') The DAO is a vote, what should and shouldn't be funded is decided by that vote. Anything else is an opinion of yours. Also a migration grant doesn't open any flood gates, from day one 2-4 people have always been able to pass whatever and from day one everyone has had the equal opportunity to ask for whatever.

So just continue to proceed as normal just because it's happened in the past? Tough viewpoint to support. No one is hindering anyone from migrating to sdk7. Yes, it costs time and money; that should not come from the DAO. Again, if it does, then it's pandora's box.

From day 1 the dao has been getting drained from people voting for their friends and back end deals. At least with migration funding you already have proof of commitment to the platform with a team that's already trusted. The fundamental problems of the dao shouldn't hinder progress of actual content.

This type of funding decision is completely different from any other decision making. It's tied to a required development specification for ALL scenes. If you allow anyone to ask for migration funds, the DAO will be drained with people voting for their friends etc. Someone with a 1x1 can ask for $50k in funding and have 2-4 people vote on it and it passes. The migration might only cost $50. This is setting a dangerous precedent to deplete DAO funds further. We cannot allow blanket requests for migration funds. There needs to be a process and review in place.