Decentralizing SuperRare: the Multi-List Platform Model (Request for Comments)

[perkins]

Introduction - progressive decentralization

In August 2021, we took the plunge and announced that SuperRare would take the path of progressive decentralization, committing to a future as a user-controlled platform. This meant that we had to innovate and devise a way for each core component of the platform to transition to decentralized ownership and control.

The first and most fundamental piece was also the simplest: marketplace revenue. Upon launch of the DAO, 100% of marketplace fees were routed to the community treasury, no longer flowing directly to SuperRare Labs.

The second piece was the question of artist promotion. When SuperRare was small, we did what we could to retweet a drop or hype up an auction, but that obviously wouldn’t scale. So we designed and launched Spaces - independent gallery storefronts on SuperRare run by professional curators incentivized to sell works on behalf of artists.

However some pieces are much more complex, with implications for user experience, brand, community, and competitive positioning. The thorniest of these is the question of gatekeeping: what artists get to be on SuperRare? Launching Spaces was an important first step toward community curation, but the question of how to vet and verify artists at the platform level remained undefined.

The problem can be broken down into more specific questions: How should artists get onto SuperRare? What role should SuperRare Labs play? What role should Spaces play? What role should $RARE holders play? As a community-controlled platform, how do we balance curation, exclusivity, and openness?

In short – we’ve had this mega-question in front of us for the past year: how does SuperRare transition to a scalable, transparently-governed, community-controlled system of gatekeeping, while maintaining our reputation for trust, authenticity, and quality?

In this document we cover this challenge in detail, and outline a proposed solution: that SuperRare adopt a multi-list architecture analogous to Uniswap’s Token Lists.

Gatekeeping is dead, long live gatekeeping

But first, why do we need gatekeeping at all?

When SuperRare launched in 2018, we founders imagined that we’d only control publishing access for a few months at most. We thought it would be a fully open system soon enough, with algorithms controlling the content like on other content platforms. Being exclusive and tightly controlled was never part of the plan.

But in 2019 and 2020 several competing platforms launched with a fully open model where anyone could mint anything as an NFT. The incentive for bad actors to pose as legitimate creators proved to be an intense force, and these platforms underwent a painful erosion of trust at best, and had to shut down altogether at worst, thanks to rampant scams and fraud.

All the while, we stuck to our “least bad solution” of hand-picking a curated community of artists who could publish on SuperRare, and, thanks to our awesome in-house curation team, garnered an increasing reputation for quality curation and authenticity.

In short, a thoughtful, measured approach to growth has allowed SuperRare to build a community that cares about authenticity and originality, and solidified our position as the place for high quality cryptoart. However, the legacy, centralized model of artists applying to SuperRare Labs to get minting access on the platform is flawed and in need of a complete overhaul.

So, the task at hand is to have our cake (maintain a reputation for trust, quality & authenticity) and eat it too (adopt a scalable, decentralized gatekeeping model).

Adopting the multi-list model

To solve this, we propose adopting what we call the multi-list model, which is a durable, scalable platform design that will allow SuperRare to continue to grow and thrive at web scale.

Single-list model vs. multi-list model

We’re all intuitively familiar with the single-list model – it’s how Netflix, Coinbase, and the App Store all work. A platform maintains a centrally-controlled list of things, and users are able to view and interact with exactly those things, and nothing else.

In contrast, the multi-list model is how Uniswap works. The platform developers maintain a list of tokens recommended to users as a default state, but the user is free to switch off the default list, and switch on one or more different branded, curated lists of tokens. This is possible because, unlike data in web2 which is constrained to the platform (e.g. YouTube videos aren’t available on Vimeo), web3 is built on a shared data layer, open and accessible to any application.

The problem with the single-list model for SuperRare

It may be tempting to pursue the single-list model because it’s familiar and seems straightforward. But after a full year of thinking deeply about it, we are not convinced of a model by which a single, high quality list that can be maintained by a decentralized community. In 2017-18 there was academic momentum in the industry around Token Curated Registries, or TCRs, but nobody has really built a successful product around the concept in over four years, and our own R&D into this challenge hasn’t yielded anything better. And given that art is highly subjective, one big master list of “good” artists doesn’t seem scalable, increasing our conviction that the single-list model isn’t right for SuperRare.

Benefits of the multi-list model

The best part about the multi-list model is that it’s already an emergent pattern on SuperRare. There is already a “SuperRare Labs default list”, just like on Uniswap – the legacy SRL allowlist – we just don’t call it as such. There are also multiple other branded, community-owned, curated lists – Spaces! In other words, it’s already how SuperRare works, we just haven’t fully embraced it yet.

It’s also a simple model that doesn’t require any new invention at the cryptoeconomic or protocol level: each list is simply controlled by one or more sovereign individuals, and the power is in the hands of the collector to toggle on or off lists as they see fit. It’s not controversial that each list is centralized, because there are multiple lists.

High-level steps needed to adopt the multi-list model*

1. Allow logged-in users to control which curators’ lists they want to see when browsing SuperRare. This means that if they want to turn off the default SuperRare Labs list of artists while browsing the marketplace, leaving only a Space curator’s list, they can easily do so.
2. Announce that the SUPR minting contract will be capped at xx,xxx tokens (maybe 50k?) The reason for doing this is that a platform-specific minting contract is a holdover from the early days of cryptoart, when curation and mining were tightly coupled. This holdover makes it harder to evolve into an aggregated, multi-curator model and it’s best to sunset.
3. Make artists listed by Space curators “full citizens”, meaning that no matter if you were added to the SRL list, or a Space list, you’re a “listed artist” or “SuperRare artist” – all with full rights to mint via the SR UI, or import Manifold, Transient, or other NFTs. (This is in contrast to how it works now, when artists are kind of “in limbo” and are restricted to only what the Space operator will allow).
4. Redesign the artist ingress flow, so that artists are no longer “applying to get onto SuperRare” via a form that goes to SuperRare Labs, but rather fleshing out a public-facing profile and trying to get on the radar of a decentralized network of curators.
5. Launch the SuperRare Codex, the place where curators can peruse un-listed artists and list them.
6. [Future potential] de-couple lists from Spaces, so that there can be curators who are good at picking/onboarding artists, but who don’t want to run a gallery

*There are more steps needed, but this is a high-level summary. Protocol and curation-related changes will be formally proposed via a SIP following community discussion around this post.

Changes to user experience and power structures on SuperRare

Adopting the multi-list model will mean some fundamental changes to the user experience and power structures on SuperRare. Here’s how that will play out for various actors in the ecosystem:

SuperRare Labs:

• SRL continues its legacy of crafting a list of premier digital artists, adding and removing artists as its curators see fit.
• But rather than having the final say in who “gets onto SuperRare” - SRL becomes just one of many official gatekeepers, all of whom have equal power to fully bring artists into the ecosystem.

Artists:

• Rather than applying to SuperRare Labs to “get onto SuperRare”, artists will have a new flow where they can complete their artist profile, and submit it to get on the radar of the whole network of curators (i.e. SRL curators and Spaces)
• The distinction becomes “listed artist” vs. “unlisted artist”. Meaning, if you are an artist on one or more curators’ lists, you will show up on SuperRare for people browsing with that curated list toggled on. I.e. you are a “listed artist” or “SuperRare artist”.
• Once listed, the experience of using SuperRare is the same for all artists, whether listed by SRL or another curator. I.e. they can mint in the SuperRare UI, import their own contracts, etc. – no artist will have any more or fewer fundamental capabilities at the platform level.
• Artist profiles will display which curators’ lists they’re on (similar to how profiles currently show affiliated Spaces)

Collectors:

• Signed-in users will be able to toggle or follow/unfollow the curators they want to see while using the platform
• Only artists from one of the curated lists that you follow will appear when browsing the marketplace, unless you specifically go to that artist’s profile
• Anyone can browse a new artist and collector registry called the Codex to see both listed and un-listed artists

Curators:

• Curators from SRL and Spaces can browse the Codex to see unlisted artists who have filled out and submitted their artist profile
• Once a curator finds a new artist they’d like to bring on to SuperRare, they list them. If this is the first time an artist is listed, SRL onboards them to the platform
• Curators can also of course list artists already on other lists, so popular artists will appear on multiple lists

Conclusion

It is vital that we continue to set SuperRare up for future success as a sustainable, web-scale platform that can remain competitive for years to come. With this aim in mind, pivoting to being an aggregated platform with decentralized curatorial control is the great project of 2022. Determining the decentralized curation model for SuperRare was the last big piece of the puzzle. The multi-list platform model will make for a much clearer, more equitable user experience for artists, collectors, and curators, and we believe it will enable a truly decentralized art market to grow and thrive.

[upheaver]

Interesting. Could it open a whole new can of worms where Spaces will scream over each other to follow this or that list instead of posting about artists?

Several questions that came up:

• What happens to the Spaces business model? How is the revenue shared with the curators in this new setup and are there cases where Space operators will be left out (custom manifold)?

• Will all Spaces lists be visible by default? Otherwise this is just switching off the existing spaces from the platform, it will completely kill the visibility for spaces content on SR.

[Bigcomicart]

There are so many artists currently that its difficult to keep up with the feed. Being all encompassing could also take away from the RARE aspect of it all. Simple retweeting works of artists works should still be done, as that makes the art more widespread, seeable and part of conversations.

[chikai]

Overall, I think this is a very well thought out proposal and it is very much the direction I was hoping that SuperRare would move towards, especially in terms of Spaces. So you have my support in moving forward with this plan.

Some initial thoughts so far:

• The key to quality moves from curating artists to curating curators. I think the current Space Race is a good start to doing this in a decentralized manner, but you may want to think of ways to evolve this so that you can scale better. I do think a Space operator “board of directors” would be interesting and I’d highly recommend putting a Space operator into that 7th seat on the SuperRare DAO governance council.
• Given the shift to the multi-list model, it puts more importance in integrating that list into the user flow of SuperRare, so that people are aware of how to use them, but also aware of the reputation behind each of those lists (i.e. curators/Space operators). A well-crafted experience of perusing these lists I think is probably more important than the SuperRare Codex, i.e. perusing un-listed artists.
• You should think about how to incentive good and active behavior by Space operators and these new “list operators” (if you do the “future potential” idea). This maybe by RARE tokens, exhibitions (like the one you did this past week at the SR Gallery in NYC), or other activities that help each be successful and feel recognized for their efforts. I’d maybe even consider allocating sizeable marketing and operational budget to reward Space operators who are truly good actors in the community and furthering the mission of SuperRare.

But again, I truly think this is the right next step for SuperRare and huge congratulations on this proposal. Very bullish on SuperRare.

[DevaMotion]

For me, as an artist not in the system, it was not easy to understand the changes, since I had not even touched the possibility of being noticed by the curators until now. But I think I understood something. I have a few thoughts on this.
Thanks to @rareperkins for giving me clarification under the tweet on my questions.

In general, it became clear to me the way to verify new artists by the following points:
1. Artist’s backgrounder. The artist must have a real legitimate background and personal representation on social media.
**Nothing has changed here, still the potential candidate must be an outstanding individual.
2. Ability to connect with curators. The artist has the opportunity to reach out to one of the 20+ curators and get feedback on the possibility of validation.
**The number of curators here is multiplied by more than 10 times, as well as the opportunity to get feedback and a clear understanding of what is missing to get on the list.

I see the first steps toward streamlining one of the most nervous and problematic issues for new artists and the platform itself.

It’s not very clear what the possibility of communication with curators will look like. I’m afraid to even speculate since, without separate space for that, a proper pre-selection algorithm for 20+ curators will be facing the same problems that 4 curators were struggling with before. Namely total ignoring of 99% of people who wrote to them or disabling of DM.

In any case, what you have planned does not solve the problem instantly, but certainly simplifies the workload of those few curators who are now responsible for processing applications from new artists. There are also the rudiments of creating a systematization of the process in the form of future lists.

As I see it, this is not the creation of something new, but the creation of tools to expand the staff of curators, as well as the creation of effective and convenient tools for their work, which in the future will be possible to optimize and improve.

If I am wrong somewhere, or if my conclusions are wrong or incomplete, please explain these nuances to me.

Now a suggestion.

As I see it, what’s missing in this whole story is a powerful tool for the pre-selection of new artists by the SR community. It could be an invitation system based on proven artists and collectors who will be able to give a preliminary invitation with a recommendation to get on the preliminary list for an interview.

Each of the verified artists or collectors can invite only one new artist and only after the artist has been approved or removed from the preliminary list will they have 1 invite again. The number of invites a candidate from different artists and collectors can move the candidate up the list in turn and bring him closer to the interview with the curator, which in itself is also a kind of filter. To avoid falsifications and fraud by people who will be able to distribute invites, a list of people who invited an artist should be publicly available and maintained to check connections between the invitees, if necessary of course. There should also be a system of penalties for those who choose to fight the system.
YES, indisputably the introduction of the system of invites will make a serious negative resonance among artists who, like me, have been waiting for their turn for more than 10 months or so. But at least it will be transparent, understandable rules, which are missing in the past and in the new system of selection of new artists.

I think that a huge hole in your improved system is the human factor, or rather 20+ curators who will make the final decision. If the selection of new artists is in the hands of the community and properly set up, then the curators for the selection of new artists is by and large not even needed. There will be enough analysts to complete the overall picture of the artist with the missing puzzles. If you like, it could be an artistic IQ test that the artist will take on the way to the interview.

Sample steps are:

1. An automatic opinion of the artist’s Backgrounder will be formed based on who exactly invited, how many people were invited, and will have a specific numerical value (here it would be cool to introduce a reputation system for community members, which can also affect the final scores)
2. The application that will be filled out by the artist after receiving invitations should look like a test, and as a result, also have a certain numerical value.
3. The main factor will be a recommendation from the person who invited the artist. You can refer to this recommendation at any time if the candidate raises questions, to contact the person who invited and clarify questions.
   4… Anything else that can automate the process

The system of invites can also become an opportunity to create galleries on the SR. For example, to create my own gallery, I need to invite 10 thematic active artists and only then do I have the opportunity to apply for gallery creation.

Sorry for writing so much, but this is a stream of thoughts I had today on the subject. It may be a little understated and rambling, but it was the best I could do since my English is so bad.

I hope that with the new system I will become the 2nd confirmed stop motion artist on SuperRare soon and I won’t have to wait another 10 months.

Regards, you all are great to move forward and not sit still! Have a lot of creative success.

[giulioaprin]

Hello there. First of all thank you for all you are doing for the platform evolution and improvements. So many things should be improved and refine for sure. Coming up with such a complex and structured model to make the platform and marketplace more decentralised is amazing and I applaud you for having meticulously thought of every detail. I think that this can have a positive and substainable outcome but only testing it will tell us the gaps and the successes.

I am honestly very curious to see this new approach in action to evaluate the results of such a model.

Will there be a beta version for testing or such to understand the mechanism of it or will it be implemented straight away?

[lucclop]

All the steps SuperRare have been taking show massive dedication to art, artists, collectors and this amazing movement we are in. Some platforms have lost their way and your passion for building and improving is outstanding. As a result of this, of course, a lot of artists would love to join SuperRare. One thing that I noticed for so long during my time in this space is that there hasn’t been transparency of how artists join the platform. The official route (submitting the google form) left so much uncertainty of how long the process might take or even if the application would be seen at all. Lately we see many artists taking to twitter campaigns to get onboarded. The current system has been leading to a lot of stress and anxiety, added to by the requirement of submitting multiple unminted artworks which are potentially held in suspense indefinitely. I can only imagine this has led to there being a huge number of unminted artworks hidden away that the world needs to see and enjoy. The current system, without any doubt in my mind has also overlooked many absolutely incredible artists who could have been enjoying great success on SuperRare. An improved system will benefit artists, collectors and SuperRare. I’m so happy that you have considered this and you are pushing to find solutions that will have such wide benefits and that transparency, opportunity, fairness and decentralization are key objectives. I’m excited by your plans.

[robevansart]

Good points in all the comments above! Kudos to SuperRare for addressing what has become an overburdened system of inboarding and selecting artists.

As an artist who has straddled both the traditional and digital arts realm for over 3 decades, and worked behind the scenes in museums as an independent curator for 20+yrs, I am seeing some common growing pains in this fairly new NFT space around the concept of curation (such as the recent debate about curatorial practices at the Tezos Foundation). Gatekeeping is always ripe for issues and accusations of bias, lack of transparency and nepotism, no matter how fair and judicious one tries to be. No doubt in the early formative years of SuperRare, when the number of applying artists was manageable, it was simpler to be equitable, careful and timely in reviewing artists for onboarding. This process has clearly not been able to scale up easily, with artists in many cases now waiting nearly a year to even find out if their applications were seen, let alone acted on, with prime unminted works sitting dormant for that same duration. At the same time, a select handful of curators are instantly onboarding artists who happen to have the right social/artistic connections to enable them to be seen by a curator.

I think it might be helpful for there to be a transparent fast track review system to evaluate and move up more accomplished artists, particularly those with a long proven track record, to get seen and a response in a more timely manner. Perhaps, as one commenter suggested, use a peer recommendation process as does Foundation, where prominent artists already in the SR stable can nominate artists for curatorial review. If the goal is to gatekeep to a certain degree and maintain a stable of high caliber artists, this is definitely an area that needs improvement (as you seem to be acknowledging). At the same time I totally get the challenge of trying to be decentralized while also curating the onboarding process. I look forward to seeing how it all plays out (and am happy to offer any guidance if you need it) and applaud your willingness to acknowledge and address these issues.

[perkins]

Thanks Paul – good questions.

1)
I don’t see why any shouting should occur, but if you want to elaborate on the potential concern, happy to discuss further. Essentially the thinking is that the reputation of curators (i.e. Space operators) becomes a much more central part of the ecosystem. Currently, Space curators are mostly relevant in the context of a Space, but this proposes to make curators a first-order construct in the platform. Those curators who identify and foster strong artistic talent will emerge as the most prominent and will build strong reputations and followings.

2)
My thinking is that the Spaces business model doesn’t really change – if a Space helps an artist sell artwork(s), the Space takes a commission, just like now. One thing to note here is that I see minting becoming increasingly decoupled and artist-controlled. IMO it shouldn’t matter whether an artist mints a work using the SR UI, Manifold, or Aysnc; whether it’s an artist-owned contract, or a Space-specific contract. If an artist decides to work with a Space for facilitation with a sale, or to be part of an exhibition, etc., and the Space sells the work, then the Space gets the commission.

This is already how it works, except we haven’t yet built full support for Spaces taking custody and selling works minted in a variety of places. Also, the plan is to enable Spaces to make secondary sales– e.g. if I as a collector want to have a Space auction off one of my works in exchange for a commission.

The main difference in the proposed model for Space operators is that they have more prominence, and have the power to fully anoint an artists as a “SuperRare artist” in the same way the curator of a list on Uniswap has the power to make assets visible or not on Uniswap. This model also essentially proposes that we formally recognize the fact that each Space curator controls a list of artists, and that the artists on that list become “full citizens” on SuperRare (i.e. they can mint, sell, import their works minted in Manifold & Async, etc. Whereas today the concept of a Space is essentially a “list + gallery”, bundled together.

3)
I definitely think all lists should be on by default, at least for the foreseeable future. And not only that, we are working on significant UI updates to make curators, Spaces & lists a much more prominent part of the browsing experience on superrare.com. And in thinking years ahead into the future to a world where there might be an overwhelming number of curators and lists, people might start building their own UIs for specific curated SuperRare experiences. The lists will be on-chain constructs, so the curation layer truly sits at the protocol layer and would translate to other UIs, just like anyone can build a new UI for Uniswap if they want. I think this model thus lends itself well to scaling up and being future proof in a world of continued growth and decentralization.

[perkins]

Hey Bigcomic, thanks for the response!

What we’re trying to do here is future-proof the system for true web scale. In a world with trillions of NFTs, billions of collectors, and tens of millions of artists, there’s no way a single Twitter account can possibly provide enough promotion or retweeting. These numbers may sound crazy now, but that’s where I believe we’re heading in the coming decade.

This is one of the main reasons we launched Spaces. Spaces are the way for the SuperRare Network to scale promotion, announcements, exhibitions, etc. They are directly incentivized to help promote artists & artworks.

I don’t think it’ll be long before there is a Space with more Twitter followers than @SuperRare has, more newsletter subscribers, etc.

SuperRare is the platform that enables this decentralized art market to function. IMO the promotional and layer needs to increasingly be served by Spaces, because SuperRare Labs is already beyond our capability to promote the artists on the platform.

Lmk if you have any other thoughts around this – it’s an important topic. Happy to chat further!

[Cryptogenik]

Hi Perkins, First off great points, very well said! I think you’ve really nailed the big reasons on the head, and there are more emergent benefits to token lists that only become apparent once the entire ecosystem starts utilizing them.

That’s why SYNC Network has released a fork of Uniswap’s token lists called CollectionLists at CollectionLists.org with the issues you have outlined at heart.

It has logical modifications and upgrades specifically for NFTs like, multichain support and backlink templates for deep-linking to the list creator’s website or dapp. Freshdrops has already finished its implementation of collection lists.

[fronk]

I like the direction the proposal is headed with the open-sourcing ethos and the concept that anyone can create their own UI if they desire to do so - this leads the way for decentralization.

One thing that might deserve more clarity is how this new paradigm affects the DAO and the subsequent decisions it will make in the future.

The thought that several Spaces could eventually be bigger than SuperRare itself lends itself to the idea that sub-DAOs that encompass one or more Spaces could arise. They may have different proposals that they want to vote on but require different expertise given the type of art they curate and represent.

Has there been any thought as to what that organizational structure may look like, or is it just something that may form organically?

[perkins]

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Chikai!

• Agreed – I don’t think it is necessarily a blocker for getting any of the other work done, but we should be thinking about ways to scale and evolve here. I like the idea of some kind of curation council as an extension of the DAO council. Also +1 to adding a Space operator to the 7th seat.

• We are actually adding a whole page on the Codex for curators, which I think could be a great place to learn about the curators and peruse their lists. The new artist journey is also going to be important to design thoughtfully, and I think it’s also a good educational opportunity – meaning, people need to understand that the meaning of “getting onto the platform” is fundamentally changing.

• Agreed – great ideas. Also, I don’t think this is a super near term concern, but we need to consider how to penalize or course-correct bad-acting curators. Because curators will unilaterally have the power to point the SuperRare indexer at an artist’s work, and thereby enable those works to be hosted at superrare.com urls and e.g. shared on Twitter, there is the potential for infringing/fraudulent/etc. artworks to be shared around the web via SR urls. This is essentially the concern of the whole network since we’re trying to maintain high trust and authenticity, so some governance mechanism around this will be needed.

Thanks once again for your feedback and enthusiasm! Look forward to discussing further

[perkins]

Yeah that evolutionary path is super interesting to consider. It’s hard to envision specifics that far down the road. But I do think that at this point we’re laying the foundations for those possibilities to flourish. So the choices we make, and the people we empower and activate in the community today could have even more powerful downstream effects.

[monicaseggos]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for sharing all the information. I applied last year to get on your platform, and I am still very interested in being one of your artists. I was excited to see an opportunity to submit my work to one of your Spaces.

I made a piece especially for this submission. As I went to submit, I read the terms. In addition to the Super Rare commission of 5%, I will have to pay the Spaces commission of 10%.

There is really nothing to say.

Have a nice day

all the best,

Monica

[_Oz]

great thoughts guys, thank you for the improving our home!
im so excited for SR’s future as much as you guys.

I always believed quality over quantity, so gatekeeping model of SR is the reason of why SR is best digital art marketplace platform currently, imho.
It also makes that elegant and premium feeling for creators and collectors.

But there are a lot of great artists outside of SR borders and many more otw too in near future. If we truly believe this is the future of digital art collecting, we should embrace everyone talented enough and has potential.

I think multi-list model is great solution, but there should be diversity between main sr and decentralized model. Spaces was already great begin but i believe many people still couldn’t understand it and should be more accessible
Even different website or brand under sr might be considered. Not perfect examples but; Alphabet or Block. Spaces is kinda like it but not exactly.

My three suggestions related to discussion are;

1. More curators with an advance knowledge in their own fields.
   In the end; art is subjective and might affect everyone differently.
   But technical perspective is non-subjective can be seperated.

3D art should be examined by someone who has knowledge in those softwares and industry.
Photography by photographer and so on…

Also this will prevent the art made with no effort but has great look in it, just a purchased stock model ie.

2. As much as its been about opening the gates to everyone, there might be some elimination or limitation also.
   Some artists are already overminting ( minting new artwork every day which is created in 30 min.)
   Some are undervaluing and go for 0.1 eth listings which affects market and reputation badly from my observation. This sales can be happen easily on other platforms as well which are already open the everyone.

So these Artists could be transferred to multi-list model from the single-list.

3. As suggested already, invite system but mostly 3 invites for the top trending artists.

Thank you.

[bellanudaart]

So that’s all confusing!

[Jacki_sparrow]

Hello guys! The Sync network project uses this scheme, Cryptogenik is absolutely right!

[jademckinley08]

great stuff, thanks for sharing the valuable information

[FabioAntenore]

Hi guys
I think this is an amazing step into the right direction.
Atm the onboarding process is quite weird.
In my case for example I applied already 9 times in the past 1.5 years, without an answer or so.
Means I have no clue why you guys never accepted me. In the meantime you onboarded many artist who started with photography (and NFT ) long after me and even some who learned much from me and have now I really similar style.
Because of that I know it could not be because of my style or quality.
But I still dont know whats the exact reason you are just ignoring me. Maybe you guys just don’t like me as a person, or maybe my proposal text or video was not good enough, or maybe I was just unlucky and you have seen not a single one of my applications.
As an artist such a situation is really frustrating. It is something which is always in my mind.
Because Im a person who never give up and always tries to reach the top level.
There is not one single day in the past 1.5 years in which I don’t ask myself „what is the reason, why they didn’t accept me“.
I guess with your new system this will no longer be an issue.
Specially if you also implement some kind of feedback.
Maybe an overview on how many curators have seen it, and also the possibility for curators to add some checkmarks on different reasons why yes or no.
It would be amazing to see because of which reason we are not accepted.
Was the proposal text nod good.
Was the video bad
Was the curation of the application artworks weak
Or is it just because someone don’t like that person.
It would help an artist so much to grow and know how he could make the next application better.
And even if he just not get accepted because he has a bad reputation or someone (or all) of the curators don’t like him he would know which point he has to change.

Im really excited to see the new onboarding mechanism… And I hope I will get also accepted one day.
Have a great day
Fabio