Bring Back Collectible Culture to Decentraland This proposal is now in status: FINISHED. Voting Results: * Yes. cap new l2 collections and restore value to existing ones 1% 5 VP (1 votes) * No. find another way to restore collectible value 2% 34,483 VP (3 votes) * No. keep wearables abundant, low-cost, and without collectible value. 87% 1,222,158 VP (5 votes) * Invalid question/options 10% 153,067 VP (2 votes)

Stay smart. Stay beautiful.

[quote="swissverse, post:36, topic:25358"] Even smart and beautiful ideas occasionally have to wait. [/quote] Calling your own idea “**Smart** and **Beautiful**” is certainly one way to respond to 1.2 million votes saying no. Keep telling yourself that, and eventually you might even convince yourself, or at least satisfy your own ego. :joy:

# One Thing I Would Change Next Time One practical thing I learned from this Pre-Proposal is that I probably made the vote itself too complicated. A Pre-Proposal is not the final proposal. It is the test run before the proposal. The question at this stage is essentially: **Do we want to develop this idea further, or not?** One voter pointed out that the choices therefore could have simply been **YES** and **NO**. I think that is probably right. I tried to give people more nuanced options because I wanted to understand *why* they disagreed. But that is asking the vote to do work that belongs in the discussion. Next time I would keep the poll brutally simple: **YES: develop this idea further.** **NO: don't.** Then use the discussion to discover what the eventual proposal should actually contain. And ironically, we have already done most of that development here anyway. The original idea was broad. The conversation exposed the misunderstandings, liquidity questions, existing-mint problem, distinction between collection capacity and individual wearables, L1 concerns, smart wearables, creator access, secondary-market effects, and several other angles. So if this ever moves forward, I don't think the next step is another giant brainstorming exercise. It is compression. Take everything we learned here, choose one concrete mechanism, explain it in language that cannot easily be misunderstood, and build a much narrower proposal around it. There is another reality though. An idea of this magnitude eventually requires the people who would actually have to build it. This isn't a cosmetic DAO change. It potentially touches creator economics, collections, marketplace behavior, publishing mechanics, and technical infrastructure. Even if the community loved the idea, somebody still has to determine whether it is technically sensible, economically desirable, and realistic enough to put onto an already crowded roadmap. That means an ambitious proposal probably benefits enormously from some early conversation with the Foundation or the people closest to the implementation before trying to push it through every governance stage. And timing matters. Decentraland is already going through major technical and organizational work. SDK development, Worlds, infrastructure, client development and other priorities are competing for the same attention. Sometimes an idea can be good and still arrive at the wrong moment. That is another useful outcome from a Pre-Proposal. You don't only learn whether people like the idea. You learn whether the idea is understandable, whether the mechanism is mature enough, whether there is somebody willing to carry it, and whether the ecosystem currently has room for it. Even smart and beautiful ideas occasionally have to wait.

[quote="swissverse, post:30, topic:25358"] At the same time, I have put real thought, work and energy into this proposal. [/quote] Of course, this proposal had the benefit of having a much **smarter**, **more beautiful** and intellectually gifted person put real thought, work and energy into it. And in return? **0 YES votes** **1.2 million NO votes** One can only imagine what the outcome might have been if this extraordinary display of intelligence, beauty and hard work hadn't been applied to the proposal

Take care, Aaron For anyone who wants more context on the actual proposal, I wrote up the reasoning and what I learned from the discussion here: https://swissverse.org/ and here https://swissverse.org/story/dao-as-a-menu-of-ideas/ or here https://swissverse.org/story/submitting-another-dao-proposal/

lol my bad for trying to help. As you said I have done nothing but talked highly of you, given you respect, even agreed with you and have also tried to always provide solutions to help since been rooting for you, and you taking that as "lack of respect" "promo" or "SEO work" when it was a legit links to past work that may help in your scarcity venture since this i clearly being voted NO by everyone across the board, and also to give you context since you were legit gone for years. And your response is legit asking for censorship of my speech lol. I can take a hint and got nothing to say to you anymore and on my way out other then wish you luck and well on your future ventures. take care.

There is such a thing as intellectual respect. I gave you that long answer because I assumed you were genuinely trying to understand what I was proposing. Your response now suggests you either didn’t read it carefully or didn’t internalize it at all. I have absolutely no interest in creating another 10K or 20K PFP collection. That has nothing to do with this proposal. And then dropping a link to your own unrelated NFT project into the thread makes the whole exchange feel even stranger. It reads less like you’re engaging with the proposal and more like you found an opportunity to promote your own thing. I reported the link for that reason. Maybe it stays, maybe it doesn’t. I don’t really care. For anyone still reading this, my point is much simpler. I want creators to have a realistic chance of building something with enough perceived value that an item might sell for $50, $100 or more, where a collection of 100 meaningful pieces can actually support real creative work and perhaps become the beginning of a small brand. Selling endless template-based wearables for $0.50, $1 or $5 is a completely different creator economy. At those prices, there is almost no room to invest serious time into the next collection. With AI reducing production effort even further, we are moving toward increasingly disposable creation. That model is allowed to exist. People can create whatever they want. I’m asking whether we can also bring back the other game: build something carefully, make it desirable, develop it over time, reward holders, improve old collections, and give ownership enough meaning that somebody is actually willing to pay real money for it. That is the discussion. I gave you the benefit of the doubt specifically because I respect the history between us. But using the response to tell me about a completely unrelated NFT collection after everything I just explained makes me feel like I was mostly speaking to myself. And you abusing my proposal for your SEO work or whatever that link is supposed to do here, is a pure lack of respect by any stretch of imagination. Not surprised at this point.

Thanks bro and yes I am agreeing with You the only thing I am debating for in case its being overlooked is AND not OR. Lets do both and let the market decide as it always does who wins. If you think Decentraland needs a scarce 10k to 20k pfp style collection or something lets do it you can even utilize the one I already did the leg work for on the Decentraland Dino Pets 3D molds already made and approved by decentraland wearable committee here is info on that: https://decentraland.org/governance/proposal/?id=89b36ab8-8121-4b42-adff-947c68c424f7 https://www.aaronleupp.com/decentraland-dinos/ Or this not what you looking for if something else then Yes def for that too. Look forward to its success whatever it is! :saluting_face: :orange_heart:

I respect you. You have consistently been supportive of me, and whenever you had an opportunity to speak about me publicly, you generally spoke highly of me. I remember that. That is also why I have probably been handling this conversation with yoz with velvet gloves. This little DAO experiment is less important to me than the handful of people I remember fondly from an earlier life in Decentraland. At the same time, I have put real thought, work and energy into this proposal. So I want to be direct with you. I think a lot of people are reading things into the proposal based on their own experiences, frustrations and existing beliefs. I also accept some responsibility for that. The complete idea is now scattered across the original proposal and a large number of replies. The initial proposal probably left too much room for people to fill in the blanks themselves. But I genuinely do not understand where this idea comes from that I want to restrict creativity, gatekeep creators, or prevent people from publishing. That is not the proposal. I am also not inventing some strange new NFT philosophy. I am suggesting we revisit the basic methodology Decentraland wearables originally came from. Create something limited. Make it desirable. Build around it. Give people a reason to want that particular thing. Give ownership some meaning. There was a reason rarity tiers existed. There was a reason some collections had 1, 10, 50 or another limited number of items available. There was also a reason publishing historically involved meaningful friction. Part of that friction forced people to think before immediately turning every idea into another permanent NFT collection. Then we tried another direction. Make creation easier. Make publishing cheaper. Allow more collections. Reduce friction. We have now run that experiment for years, and we have roughly 5,700 L2 collections sitting there. Fine. They exist. They are not disappearing. My proposal is: now let’s make those 5,700 collections great. Take something you made five years ago and improve it. Make it smart. Replace mediocre work with something better where technically possible. Build an actual brand around it. Create privileges for holders. Reward the people who bought from you years ago. Develop the collection instead of abandoning it. Sell an unused collection to another creator who sees more potential in it than you do. Give old collections contracts another life. Create a market around the capacity that already exists. That sounds infinitely more interesting to me than collection #5,701, #5,702, #5,703 and eventually #50,000, where the default answer to every new idea is simply to publish another one. And yes, I understand the other side. There is value in being able to create something cheaply and quickly. There are promotional use cases. There are brands that simply want to give something away. There are experiences that may need utilitarian assets. There may be reasons to preserve some completely frictionless form of creation. I understand that. The problem is that when this becomes the universal model, it gradually removes the other experience. You can still create something. You just have very little chance of creating something that becomes genuinely collectible. L1 demonstrates the opposite problem. L1 wearables have history, scarcity and collectible identity. But you cannot create a new L1. So on one side we have something collectible that nobody can newly create. On the other side we have something anybody can endlessly create, with increasingly little reason for any particular collection to develop meaningful collectible value. I am trying to find the middle. That brings me to “utility,” because this is where I genuinely lose the thread of your argument. A regular wearable already has its fundamental utility. You wear it. That is one of the strongest native utilities an NFT can have in a virtual world. It changes your avatar. Other people see it. You carry it around with you. A smart wearable can add functionality. You can also attach access, privileges, rewards or experiences to ownership without changing the basic wearable itself. So when you say the answer is “utility,” I genuinely need to know what utility you mean. Because this whole framing has a very strong 2021 aftertaste to me. I have not heard people seriously talk about “NFT utility” this way in years. It feels like a ghost from the play-to-earn cycle, when every NFT project was going to justify value through more utility, more perks, more access, more functionality, more promises. We have had five years to observe what happened to most of that. And there is another problem with utility as the source of durable differentiation: utility is a commodity. I experienced this personally. I had developed a wearable mechanic and mentioned it in a support forum because my collection had a bug and I needed help from the developers before I could get it approved. While I was waiting for support, somebody saw the mechanic, copied it directly and managed to publish essentially the same thing before I could even get mine through approval. There was nothing protecting the idea. It worked, therefore somebody copied it. That is the point. If you discover a desirable functional mechanic, somebody else can observe it, reproduce it and publish another version. With AI, that becomes easier still. So yes, utility can create demand. It can make something interesting. It can make an experience better. But utility by itself does not create durable differentiation when the functional idea can be reproduced immediately. That is why I do not understand “utility instead of scarcity” as an answer to this proposal. They are not even solving the same problem. And I think some of the history you described with Waifumon, external NFTs, pets, linked assets and the difficulties you experienced getting those ideas implemented is probably a valuable discussion in its own right. But I do not think it answers this proposal. Those are stories about trying to give NFTs additional functionality and running into technical, bureaucratic or adoption problems. This proposal is asking something else: What if instead of continuously adding new collection capacity, we start treating the enormous amount of capacity that already exists as something worth developing? That does not stop creativity. It redirects some creativity toward things people already created. It does not stop utility. It gives creators a reason to add utility to what already exists. It does not stop new ideas. It asks whether every new idea really requires another permanent collection. And it does not lock newcomers out. If the model is designed properly, unused collections become part of a secondary market. Existing owners who have collections gathering dust suddenly discover that those assets have another purpose. There are technical questions around already minted items, collection names, repurposing and how ownership transitions should work. Those deserve serious engineering discussion. But those are implementation questions. The idea itself is much simpler: We already created an enormous amount of infrastructure for wearable creation. Instead of endlessly expanding it, can we turn what already exists into a deeper creator and collectible economy? That is what I want people to give a fair chance. And I am giving you this detailed response specifically because of what I said at the beginning. I want to treat you with respect, and I hope you take the directness in that way. Some of the points you made, and some of the history you brought into the discussion, go in many different directions. I wanted to address them because you put effort into writing them, while also bringing the conversation back to what this proposal is actually about. There are other places where we can have the post-mortem discussion about what worked and failed during the previous NFT cycle. This proposal is forward-looking. It is about whether there is a mechanic available to us that could make creating, improving, owning, trading and building around Decentraland assets substantially more interesting than it is today. And if I am being completely candid, I do not think anybody has really given that idea a fair chance yet. Most people have arrived carrying something else. Their frustration with gatekeeping. Their attachment to L1. Their concern about smart wearables. Their previous projects. Their experiences with the DAO. Their assumptions about scarcity. Their personal feelings about me. Their desire to vote no. Their desire to explain why they voted no. All of that has had plenty of room. The actual idea has had surprisingly little. That is the part I would still like us to discuss.

Yes I agree that is the irony of NFTs is that it is actully the answer to Ai. The solution came before and no one knew it. I also agree utility is that solution. One of the first Decentraland NFTs i bought was one of your tuxedos because it was the only one at the time and I wanted it. The reason why we sold thousands of Waifumon NFTs at first was so people can earn the Waifumon Decentrland blue fairy pet. Now more utility is the solution and I tried hard with that for years With 1. Waifumon Gen-2 10k fairy pet collection 2. Decetraland Dinos 20k unique Decentrland pet collection and 3. MetaVS shields linked (Cryptopunk, BAYC, MAYC, etc) Decentraland linked collection. To be linked across Decentrland and all metaverses and products in real life. The reality is was hit with 5 years of nonsense friction from red tape and gate keepers. The 3D molds were made but could never get them linked. Same with smart wearables we could only get them so the player can see the effects not the other players. Just giving data points in case it help on your or other peoples quest to find utility since these roads have left us fatigued and may be more efficient and fruitful solution. Hopefully now with Ai assistance you guys can find it too that the market wants. In the end yes that is the real issue Utility NOT growing gate keeping for other to continue to make more wearables. Let the hero's rise wherever they may be not keep them out in hopes our shortcomings get some type of value growth based on scarcity conspiracy that ads no nurturing value.

You missed the point, read between the lines, you are the new Jar0d and that is not a good thing :joy:

**JasonX 1.0, finding Jar0d in every proposal. What did that man do to you?** **Oh wait. Actually, I don’t care.**

swiss is the new Jar0d 2.0 :joy:

I genuinely don’t understand what you’re saying or who you’re even saying it to. If there’s anything of value in there, try one more time. Right now it looks like you spilled your emotions all over an attempt to communicate. Clean up after your little puking session and keep the thread clean. There is one thing I understood though: you’re right about the genius part.

[quote="AaronLeupp, post:22, topic:25358, full:true"] I see points from both sides. but my vote is to always just focus on making wearables abundant at low cost as possible. My case study is Pokemon. Japanese 1st Edition Charizards came out first and English 1st Edition Charzards came out way later. One can deduce the english ones are worth more even tho they came out later is because the value of the impact it had on the people that want to pay for them. The market decides what it values and release dates are just one of many variables that play into that value not the only true thing that matters. [/quote] I see the argument for making creation as cheap and abundant as possible. We’ve been moving in that direction for years, and it does produce more wearables. I just think there is a much more interesting game available. You can take an existing collection and make it better. You can make it smart. You can add utility. You can build a stronger identity around it. You can reward the people who already hold your items. You can airdrop them things. You can create reasons for holders to stay interested. You can turn an old collection into something people suddenly care about again. That is much more interesting to me than simply creating another collection. I never sold huge quantities of wearables. What I did value were the people who actually bought and held mine, and I tried to reward them when I could. At the top of the market, some items sold for very meaningful amounts. You did not need hundreds of collections if you had something people genuinely believed had value. Compare that with selling items today for $0.50, $1, maybe $5 if you are doing very well. At some point, what is the economic point of selling them at all? If AI eventually lets you generate the item almost instantly, publishing costs almost nothing, and the resale value is cents, you may as well give the wearable away for free. And once creation is effectively free and distribution is free, the next obvious question is why we even need meaningful review or curation. That path is coherent. It leads toward wearables becoming abundant digital content. I just think that is a very different future from wearables being assets you build around, improve, collect, trade, reward holders with, and try to make desirable over time. I would rather explore that second game.

In that case, why not stop everyone who abandoned DCL from publishing new assets? Why allow the MTVRS refugees to come back and target us with their products? Why play along with this ego trip? But I’m no genius like you, so I don’t have the answers.

I see points from both sides. but my vote is to always just focus on making wearables abundant at low cost as possible. My case study is Pokemon. Japanese 1st Edition Charizards came out first and English 1st Edition Charzards came out way later. One can deduce the english ones are worth more even tho they came out later is because the value of the impact it had on the people that want to pay for them. The market decides what it values and release dates are just one of many variables that play into that value not the only true thing that matters.

Don’t turn your personal issue with me into “mocking everyone here.” You don’t speak for everyone. There are about three people actively discussing this, and I’m addressing each person individually. If someone brings a thoughtful argument, I’ll put real effort into answering it. If someone comes in swinging, talking down to me, or carrying frustration from another thread, they’ll probably get some substance and some snark back. What exactly do you expect, a thank-you? And no, I’m not going to post about you on X. You haven’t done anything worth posting about. You made a half-baked joke and got a better joke back because I actually put some effort into mine. That’s pretty much how I operate. Give me something of quality and I’ll try to return something of quality. Come in with attitude and I might have some fun with that too. At least then the people reading through all of this get something entertaining out of it. This reply is already massive overkill, and I doubt it changes anything. But I’ll give you this much respect once.

Don't forget to post about this on X as well, maybe write a brand new article mocking everyone here again while you're at it. Your model's pretty on point with your style

HA! Funny as always..

Underwear isn’t an available slot at the moment. You should probably file an enhancement request. Wrong proposal.

NO. Imagine having such a concept IRL, LMAO. All for the sake of collection "scarcity" I just want a pair of undies man.

Upgrade your model, bro

Nothing says “strong argument” quite like declaring yourself the smarter and considerably more beautiful person in the room :smiling_face_with_sunglasses: