Reduce Wearables & Emotes Fee to $25: Automate Validation, and Reform Committee This proposal is now in status: PASSED. Voting Results: * Yes 98% 6,610,260 VP (67 votes) * No 1% 8,610 VP (2 votes) * Abstain 1% 2,060 VP (2 votes)

**Curation Committee** > The 3-person restructured Committee handles first-pass review; legal counsel is brought in for cases requiring legal judgment. There are only 3-4 the most active curators at this moment: Yannakis, Andreus, TheAnkou. + Sango, but looks like he is very inactive for last couple of months compared to past years. Other curators are inactive for years already. I don't think we need some kind of vote, or new members, since there are only 3-4 active curators at this moment, we have enough of experience with wearables issues throughout active curation for years, so picking new curators or kicking currently active curators is not really necessary. My suggestion is to keep 4 most active curators and in future re-organize according to their activity and feedback from community. The one thing that I think should be improved is the way we speak with creators, curators should use standardized clean message structure, so all conversations between curators and creators looks clean and friendly. **Automated Validator & IP** The current system is not perfect, for example it can't recognize that wearable overlaps with default avatar skin or default wearables, or requires some categories to be hidden. There also some incorrect messages related to triangles, materials, textures count, especially when wearable hides categories for extra triangles. The most major issue is wearables that have visual issues and incorrect weight painting, overlapping glitches, this requires only curator check and can't be automatized. What about emotes, emotes 2.0, smart wearables, linked wearables? Validator won't be able to check smart wearables functional, or emotes that fly away from area or have some visual issues in-world, builder may be fine, but most of times emotes in-world looks invisible or broken. This should be tested only manually by curator. I strongly believe that validator won't recognize IP issues, a lot of creators in Roblox/Nifty Island/GTA RP/etc steal models from sketchfab, models-resource, deviantart models rips. Then do a bit of re-color to this models and publish them. Even in Decentraland there are few wearables like this were already approved by other curators and still alive in marketplace, even though it's absolutely visible that model was stolen from other game or downloaded from resources that release stolen IP. This kind of issues may be recognized only by curator. As example, I was working for 12+ years with stolen IPs (doing them as mods for GTA RP, and other private projects), my visual memory is very good regards models from other games. I have more than thousands of models from many popular games on my pc that I use daily for private projects. That's my take, there may be more hidden issues, probably. But all the rest seems very good for new creators? Reduced fees will full fill marketplace with bad models, stolen models, broken models. Also be prepared for tons of AI generated models being published. Though most of them looks ultra ugly and have a lot of technical issues. Well, somehow Roblox and other projects works very well even with full filled market. :melting_face:

1. I have 1 issue with this proposal, however, unlike many I will not be letting that decide my vote. That issue is with how the 3 curators are going to be selected. Every other DAO committee and squad was disbanded as part of the Regenesis restructure and rebuilt from scratch through open processes. Why does the Curators Committee get to select its own three successors internally? These are DAO-funded governance roles. There should be an open call. Let the community apply. Let the DAO decide. That is what representative governance looks like. That being said and most likely unanswered here are my reasons for voting YES. 1. Automated validator runs before any fee is charged — free iteration on technical rejections, no cost for failed submissions 1. Stronger IP and plagiarism protection than the current system. Similarity flags and IP flags pause publication before minting, not after. 2. Publishing time goes from days to minutes for clean submissions. 3. Curators Committee shrinks from 14 to 3 with clearer accountability and a defined scope. (Do not care for the selection process as it goes against representative governance) 4. The DAO still receives the full $25 while the Foundation absorbs the $20 difference during the subsidy period, not the DAO 5. Displaced creators from other platforms coming to DCL need a lower barrier to participate. 6. Open source validator means the community can see and contribute to the rules, not just accept human discretion.

Sorry I didn't realise DETOX was you haha.. Calling on @Doug-NFTWorld @Dhingia @maraoz to consider throwing your hat in.

I've already voted in favor. Thank you @3Point1Four

@DOCTORdripp @PunkPink @Monotributista tagging a few people here who are creators and DAO council.

Do I get to publish another 19 for free then since I just paid 100. Lol.

I agree. As one of the few active DCL Wearable and Emote creators, I'd otherwise demand a "DCL Main Sponsor Badge" if the fees stay at $100 :upside_down_face:

First and foremost, I'd like to say that reducing the cost of publishing a wearable is long overdue. Market conditions, as well as the available tech, are very different from the last time a similar proposal passed. My initial proposal was to just reduce the cost of publishing by half in hopes that it brings creators some cost reprieve. Thanks solely to @ginoct and the Regenesis Labs team, the development of the validators as well as the tie up with Foundation has greatly reduced the cost of publishing wearables from 100USD to 25USD(-20USD), as well as substantially cutting down the processing time. This is no easy feat and while some on-ramp attrition is expected, this will inevitably benefit the creator ecosystem at large.