oh, awesome! I'm not a fan of the scaling of VP depending on rarity. edit: sorry, I accidentally submitted before finishing VP will be distributed according to rarity as follows: I'd prefer something like * Mythic: 500 VP * Legendary: 200 VP * Epic: 100 VP * Rare: 50 VP * Uncommon: 10 VP rationale: I don't think Mythic wearables should give 1000x what Uncommon ones give. A smoother curve would be better IMO.

Thanks @maraoz. We have one more opportunity to modify this proposal before it goes forward into a binding governance vote. I am leaning toward structuring the final vote as a ranked choice between the previously agreed upon possible solutions.

Not a fan of this proposal's specifics, but voted YES to try to distribute VP more broadly.

[quote="jar0d, post:17, topic:11669"] Dismissing valid concerns because you don’t like how they are articulated is not what leadership is. [/quote] Look on this chain, and look across my entire chat history, in discord and on the forums to see how I engage when people raise valid concerns in a constructive and meaningful way. This is a draft proposal. Elevating two proposals that passed 6+ months ago, because they were not implemented, because it required broader community consensus and technical understanding to enact. This "DRAFT" proposal is part of that process, came out of an open working group in the Discord where opinions could be raised, was discussed at town halls for several months in detail, and there is one more opportunity to modify this proposal before it goes to a binding governance solution. There are other options that have been discussed and remain on the table, including attaching VP to all L1 wearables (which may be a much more equitable solution in some peoples minds, more technically difficult in others, and not justifiable at all to others). Hit me with any and all arguments ser. I have heard near all of them and will continue to listen to them and work to synthesize them in a way that resonates with as many different people as possible, from as many different stakeholder groupings as possible, in a manner that is for the overall betterment of this community and this DAO. But do not throw sh*t and expect anything else in return. I also suggest you look back at who outwardly supports this. I don't think they are from the community you think they are. Many of them were from the same 2020 cohort as my self, and to be honest, I know some of them do not fully agree with the solution that is being presented here, because it is too limiting, and that the restriction of VP to the original six official wearable collections is too limiting as to who VP will go to. To this I say we need to answer a few questions: - First, are you/we against adding VP to any/all Layer 1 Wearables? Meaning you do not believe wearables should have VP associated with them at all. If so, then why? - Second, if you agree that L1 wearables should or at least could get VP attached to them, is it the limitation to the 6 Original Wearable collections? Which by the way, equate for 70% of all L1 wearables. Should we extend it to include official collections from 2020? All of L1 wearables? **My sense of how the community overall has reacted to this DRAFT PROPOSAL - both publicly and in private conversations that I have had - is that the only way we can reach a reasonably sound level of consensus on this issue is to structure the BINDING GOVERNANCE PROPOSAL stage of this item as a **Ranked Choice** vote, that includes the primary solutions that are being proposed.** That is: a) Do not attach VP to any L1 Wearables b) Attach VP to the Original 6 official DCL wearable collections on L1, as cited in the Draft Proposal c) Attach VP to ALL L1 Wearables, as cited in the original Polls of June 2021 d) Wearables should have VP, but we need to continue working to find the best implementation pathway This will allow us to vote all these suggestions (and any others we decide need to go in the final version of the proposal) against each other, till we find the one with the most support). Instead of trying to find a consensus from the working group, I should have presented all leading options in this way for the Draft Proposal Stage.

By implementing this proposal, it would give more voting power to the same community that has voted on Nikkis grant proposal, which has passed and will provide 60 000$ for game development.

If you aren't able to see why this is a bad look for the community that's already artificially inflating the price of land and taxing the people actually building the community like @Billyteacoin, @NikkiFuego or anyone not lucky enough to meet a generous whale benefactor, then I don't have much hope for the future of DCL. Dismissing valid concerns because you don't like how they are articulated is not what leadership is. Treat the reasonable people on the ground with respect and I won't be here calling out the corrupt greed that is clear to anyone who is able to step back and take a clear look at the reality of the situation.

[quote="Xeta, post:10, topic:11669"] These are just active numbers? [/quote] Yes, these are just active numbers, not the total. [quote="Xeta, post:10, topic:11669"] A lot of 1/100 legendaries sold for 1k-1500 mana a piece, and would only be getting a fraction of that as vp, unlike everything else. [/quote] These are from the six collections even included in the proposal? Since this proposal was based on the versions that passed previously, it went with the distribution made in the second Wearables VP proposal, which allocated 100 to legendaries. I think, however, there was some discussion of this fact that they cost more, so it is something to consider. [quote="Xeta, post:10, topic:11669"] I really think any and all l1 wearables should be giving vp as a similar turn out of participation will hardly impact the dao, and give vp to those who have held wearables [/quote] While I am not personally opposed to this, and I do believe that the creation of additional VP is inherently a positive thing, I feel that such a decision is not justifiable with past precedent or other metrics, and would in many cases be creating double VP, as wearables were sold by private creators, so they would gain the VP from the sale and the buyer would gain the VP from the purchase. That said, I can map out the case for all L1 wearables again, as I think these six collections actually account for 70% of all L1 VP, so extending it to all L1 wearables is not that significantly different, other than the justifications for it...

[quote="jar0d, post:12, topic:11669, full:true"] Did you fail to find a good reason to justify this greed? The only reason I can imagine 3 edits and a delete. [/quote] I will not engage with your antagonism ser. I deleted because I was trying to respond to Xeta not you. I am a facilitator of a process that produced this proposal, as stated, it was produced by the Wearables VP working group, it is not mine. Your responses, however, only serve to undermine any legitimate argument you could be making, and your reputation in the Decentraland Community. We are adults here, and should treat each other with respect.

Lol u mad? Names/land got vp - I don’t see why l1 wearables shouldn’t get some too, not like adding some more diversity to the heavily stacked dao is a bad thing lollllll

Who is the rest of us? 4 people that voted no? Or are you talking about yourself in plural? You have already made fool of yourself in Twitter, please try to keep it together at least in DAO forum.

Did you fail to find a good reason to justify this greed? The only reason I can imagine 3 edits and a delete.

Why should the rest of us subsidize your investing choices? You purchased those wearables for some reason, and VP wasn't it.

These are just active numbers? The land should total 180m vp for the 90k parcels, and less than 10% of the land owners (7.2k on OS are even active within the dao) I really think any and all l1 wearables should be giving vp as a similar turn out of participation will hardly impact the dao, and give vp to those who have held wearables. A lot of 1/100 legendaries sold for 1k-1500 mana a piece, and would only be getting a fraction of that as vp, unlike everything else.

[quote="Xeta, post:7, topic:11669, full:true"] This should extent to more collections, honestly. There’s only so much, of them, and they are discontinued. It’s not even 1% of the VP of land 850 parcels gives 1.7m vp. I think this would help distribute the vp more evenly. But include all 1k l1 mythics, (1m vp total) as well as the other L1s… [/quote] Some of the calculations in the proposal are actually inaccurate (my fault), creating 1.7m VP is not 10% of total active voting power, which is 62m.  I think it is easier to control over the long term if it is attached to certain collections, not rarities, and it will likely be more even dispersed as well if by collection instead of rarity, as L1 Mythics are likely predominantly held by specific type of DCL stakeholders. There are a few additional official DCL collections from 2020 I believe, which if we apply VP to it could create additional VP, distribute it across more wallets and eras of stakeholders, and even set a precedent for creating new VP in the future, weather on L1 or L2, as we could determine that a certain type of official collection will have VP attached to it in the future (thinking out loud here) – as it would be kind of cool to see wearable collections in the future that have VP and are distinguished from the wider marketplace, e.g. because they have special historic value and are officially released by the DAO/Foundation. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FoV7TdMTVnqVOZoV4bvVdHWkeu4sMH5JEhp8L0Shjlo/edit#gid=624625832

This should extent to more collections, honestly. There’s only so much, of them, and they are discontinued. It’s not even 1% of the VP of land 850 parcels gives 1.7m vp. I think this would help distribute the vp more evenly. But include all 1k l1 mythics, (1m vp total) as well as the other L1s…

I joined Decentraland last summer, so I was too late to get the L1 wearables, but over time I have bought some from Opensea. I am happy that I will get voting power for some of my wearables, it won't be much, but at least some extra power!

I do not understand why this requires a retroactive change. What occurred that makes the ruling class of DCL need to extract even more value now?

[quote="jar0d, post:3, topic:11669"] Arbitrary is the word for it, indeed. [/quote] I would not say this is arbitrary. The initial wearable collections were the only essential asset class in which community members spent MANA that was burned and was not exchanged for VP. Also, see the distribution of wallets, it is not only OGs that are gaining VP, but those early adherents are gaining the most. That said it is still less than 10% of the total active VP. There has been some discussion of what it would mean to add it to some collections from 2020 that were official releases so that it was both 1st gen and 2nd gen communities that got VP. This is a Draft proposal still, so it will require passing this stage and a final stage to be passed, so there is still room for discussion on it.

The primary objection to this proposal I've seen is that it is a greedy power grab by OGs with no perspective on what good optics is. This is disrespectful to the hundreds of people who have joined DCL and are busting their ass to build a community. Why do the rich need to get richer while those who have been creating in the space in recent days do not deserve compensation for their time and mana? Arbitrary is the word for it, indeed. 

*This proposal was prepared by the Decentraland DAO Facilitation team, in collaboration with the Wearables VP Working Group.* (meant to include this at the top of the proposal)

Wearables Working Group: Attach VP to Limited # of L1 Wearable Collections This proposal is now in status: PASSED. Voting Results: * Yes 63% 1,781,131 VP (49 votes) * No 37% 1,050,281 VP (5 votes)