A way to moderate the content of the Decentraland collections is needed to prevent spam,
abuse, clone and copyright. The Decentraland's collections will be created in a L2, where the
expected cost of creating a collection is (almost) 0 USD.
This document presents alternatives on how Decentraland collection moderation will work.
Alternative 1. Entity in L1 moderates collections in L2
The management of L2's collections could be handle by the DAO or by a special on-chain entity.
With DAO
Entity = DAO
Manage Collections ( > 2 transaction)
A vote to approve/reject a collection in L2 must be started in the Decentraland's DAO in L1.
At vote enactment, a message will be forwarded from L1 to L2 by a bridge ending up with the
collection approved/rejected in L2.
With Committee/Board
Entity = Committee smart contract which will check if the sender of the transaction
has balance of an specific token controlled by the Dencetraland's DAO as the SAB token
Add/Remove Members ( > 2 transaction)
A member of the community creates a vote to add/remove someone from the committe/board on
the Decentraland DAO.
Once the vote is encated, that person will be add/removed from the committe.
Manage Collections (1 transaction)
A member of the committee sends a transaction to the Committee smart contract in L1, to
approve/reject a collection in L2.
The transaction creates a message that will be forwarded from L1 to L2 by a bridge, ending
up with the collection approved/rejected in L2.
Alternative 2. DAO in L1 manage an entity, moderation happens in L2
The management of L2's collections will be done by an Entity in L2. The
Entity will be managed by the Decentraland's DAO.
Use cases
Entity = Committee smart contract which will check if the sender of the transaction
is part of the committee chosen on L1. If so, it will forward the message to the
collections
Add/Remove Members ( > 2 transaction)
A member of the community creates a vote to add/remove someone from the committe/board on
the Decentraland DAO.
At vote enactment, a message will be forwarded from L1 to L2 by a bridge ending up with
the member added/removed from the Entity in L2.
Manage Collections (1 transaction)
A member of the committee sends a transaction to the Committee smart contract to
approve/reject a collection in L2.
The transaction creates a message that will be forwarded to the collection, ending up with
the collection approved/rejected.
Alternative 3. Collections curated by staking and challenging
The management of L2's collections will be done by creator in L2. Protocol parameters will be
handled by the DAO in L1
Submit a collection
Creators stake X amount of MANA in order to publish a collection Colllection Curator smart
contract.
A collection has a grace period of Y days before it can start minting items if no challenge
happened.
Any creator that has created a collection can challenge another collection, at any time
(even if the grace period has ended).
When a collection is challenged, the challenger has to stake Z amount of MANA.
Any creator that has created a collection can vote.
Each creator has one vote per each collection created, and the weight of the vote is the
square root of the amount of time (or blocks) the collection has existed.
After N amounts of days, anyone can resolve the challenge.
If the challenger wins, an amount of Z MANA (from the reserve) is distributed among the
creators who voted to remove the collection.
If the challenger loses, an amount of Z MANA (from the reserve) is distributed among the
creators who rejected the challenge.
There are two kinds of challenge: PAUSE, and CLAIM a collection.
The PAUSE challenge should use a small % of the staked MANA.
The CLAIM challenge should use 100% of the staked MANA.
DEPRECATED
The FIX challenge should use a small % of the staked MANA.
The REJECT challenge should use 100% of the staked MANA.
Pause
example:
A creator published a collection by staking X MANA in the Colllection Curator
smart contract.
Another creator notices one model is broken, so he challenges to pause the collection until
fixed by staking 0.1 * X MANA (10% of original stake).
Other creators vote during a 7 day period -> the challenge is successful.
The collection is paused, it cannot mint new tokens anymore.
0.1 * X MANA from the reserve are distributed among the successful challengers.
0.1 * X MANA is returned to the challenger.
The creators fixes the broken model, and publishes the collection again. He needs to add
0.1 * X MANA to the stake in order to publish it again.
Claim
example:
The collection has been paused for N time with no response of the current creator.
Another creator wants to fix the collection cause the current owner seems to don't care
about fixing it. So, he stakes X MANA to fix the collection.
Other creators vote during a 7 day period -> the challenge is successful.
The collection is transferred to the new creator. Now, the challenger can upload the old
correct models again to fix the collection.
0.9 * X MANA (balance of the paused collection) from the reserve are
distributed among the successful challengers.
X MANA is staked for the new creator
DEPRECATED
Reject
example
A creator published a collection by staking X MANA in the Colllection Curator
smart contract.
Another creator notices the collection is a copycat of another existing one, so he challeges
to remove the collection by staking X MANA.
Other creators vote during a 7 day period -> the challenge is successful.
The collection is rejected permanently.
X MANA from the reserve are distributed among the successful challengers.
X MANA is returned to the challenger.
Decision Outcome
Alternative
1
DAO
Pros
N/A
Cons
Every yes/no vote cost ~ 3 dollars
DAO votes could take too long
Implications
As votes can take more than 1 week to pass through all the stages, and collections will be
created dinamically and faster by users in L2.
The rejection of a collection will take longer than the grace period, leaving collections
approved where they should not.
Committee DAO App
Pros
Committee decision won't need a vote.
Cons
Every approval/rejection cost ~ 3 dollars
Alternative
2 ✅
Pros
Committee decision won't need a vote.
Every approval/rejection will cost (almost) 0 dollars.
Cons
N/A
Based on risk reduction (L2 is new for Decentraland) and resources cointraints we will go with
the Alternative X and later, with the Alternative 3. The implementation of the
alternative chosen should allow and easy way to iterate.
We decided the alternative 2 is the best approach to set the place where the governance of
the collections will happen, in L2.
This decision may be revisited once we define the economics and anti-spam mechanisms that
would compromise the stability and operations of the committee.
Open
questions
Can we pre-approve submissions before the creator start working on the collection? like a
pre-approved project
Should we need to care about the rarity?
Define guidelines
Send money to the fundation
In alternative 2, can any user propose a collection?:
Yes, there is no limit. It can be abused.
If you lock mana in the collection itself. If the price of the NFT goes below the mana
locked, the NFT could be burned to unlock its inner MANA.
