If I reworked one that was submitted like 3 months ago, should I resubmit it or just DM you about it?
Thank you, Captain! What a nice surprise to wake up to. Don’t worry it’ll be completely simple and to your liking!
7 Likes
Yeah I agree
3 Likes
This is to everyone King_A, not just in response to you. While this seems like a logical request on the end of the submitters, for Captain it might be putting him right back where he would like to extricate himself from. We need to think of him, lol. Before the whole community projects cycle, he was free to work on his own projects, plus a million others things needed to run his various businesses. Asking him to not only consider, but respond to each group with comments is a lot. We do not want to burn our Captain out, and the fields he produces himself just keep getting better and better. I would rather have him take ideas from the various submissions (if any are worthy) and then release a public field himself according to his desires and schedule. That way some of the worthy ideas might be implemented, and Captain can work according to his own schedule and not ours.
19 Likes
Exactly as It should be on his own timeframe. As Captain also stated, he doesn’t have to accept all projects. So as long as we are all mindful and considerate this time around and respect Captain’s decisions, all should be well.
This
4 Likes
I don’t understand this comment. Could you, please, tell me more about what you’re meaning here?
You see, we have NFTs which are public fields. For example, The Solidifier is a current NFT that’s enjoying a lot of public attention and enjoyment.
So, I think I’m missing your point. Thanks in advance for helping me out!
3 Likes
From my understanding, dream releases Nfts to protect his products from piracy, that’s it
2 Likes
Sure we have both public NFTs and private NFTs (community projects). We are discussing the latter.
1 Like
Thanks for wanting to help out. I worry that you may be putting words into the mouth of our friend, @King_A. So, I’ll leave the door open for them to clarify what they are meaning.
So, it’s the private aspect that’s important to you, am I right? That’s helpful for me to know. Thank you.
3 Likes
Please not that solution brother 
Greatly appreciate you considering reviewing the projects again! And what a funny thread to announce it in lol
Eager to hear about our submissions 
4 Likes
This forum is like a treasure hunt. There are gems hidden everywhere throughout it!
8 Likes
Captain, the choice is yours. You are the creator of these fields and if you aren’t inspired or excited by the submissions / incoherent concepts, you can say no to the ones you don’t want to do. You can pick the ones that are unique and will help / advance people. The last thing we need is you feeling uninspired, overwhelmed and bored.
Or you can do this also. Again, it’s your prerogative and your business.
5 Likes
It would be a shame to lose potentially great projects that are just some changes away from reaching that greatness status
Imagine not having a Black Panther NFT - one of the best NFTs so far - because it has some concepts that cannot be applied. And I imagine it’s not that easy for us to know when we are in a situation like this.
You helped us a lot on the Viracocha project, and if you did this on more groups on the early NFT community project days, then you for sure co-created some projects. And if this is true, a lot of them are as good as they are due to your help. At least I can state this for the Viracocha project - it would be far less coherent and interesting without your touch.
Maybe this is something we are needing right now as we reach points of being more and more difficult to create non-used concepts? This would slow down how many are made, but the trade-off would be having more Black Panthers, Déjà-vus etc. Maybe you can publicly release them based on your contribution.
Or maybe we could shift towards this direction of public releases as a community. Just don’t let the unique takes and designs lose themselves in the sea of potential and stay only there, please.
But at the same time, I think being more rigorous on restrictions and where you draw the line on what is abuse will help all of it work better.
10 Likes
For any projects you don’t feel like making, you can just tell the groups their proposal was rejected. Just say “no.” You don’t have to give any reasons at all if you don’t want to. You don’t owe anyone any explanation whatsoever, especially considering it drags the process out longer, and adds more work for you. If you don’t feel like making a project, that’s reason enough.
Considering the number of field proposals and community groups there are, we can’t expect every one of these projects to get made. Of course, if you see potential for an imperfect proposal that interests you, you can give advice on proposal revisions, but I don’t think you should force yourself to further involve yourself in any projects that you don’t genuinely like.
8 Likes
But isn’t that what happened just a little while ago with the decision to stop doing community projects? I mean, wasn’t that (and forgive me for putting words in the Cap’n’s mouth here) a sort of all-inclusive “no, I don’t feel like making these sorts of projects anymore.” Aren’t we right here witnessing how it’s not as simple a solution as you’re proposing?
I have to say that I’m fascinated by how this thread’s evolved and I thank you all for stimulating me to think about so many different things.
2 Likes
Not exactly… he left the window open for some projects to get made before closing, which created a bit of confusion in the private groups, from what I saw. It was not an all inclusive no.
From what I’ve read so far it seems Cap is legitimately interested in some projects, and some… not so much, if at all. But feels hesitation about just telling those groups no, while giving other groups the okay. I’m saying if he feels like telling some particular groups no, without further explanation, it’s cool. He doesn’t have to feel obligated to draw out the process. And if wants to axe community projects altogether, that’s fine too.
1 Like
Some thoughts, if I may:
Maybe the Community Projects were too exclusive? Many had 8-10 people at most. This could’ve led to some feeling left out. Less people were expressing their thoughts about new fields. A lot of private groups were formed and they would spend most of their time in the private groups, and less were spending time in the public parts of the forum (I think somebody brought this up a few months ago?).
With so many groups and no one communicating, many similar NFTs were being created.
If the Community Projects had maybe 50-100 copies, it could still be “limited edition” but most people who would be interested would be able to get a copy of that NFT. Less groups are formed since there is less “FOMO” and there would be more participation from the community as a whole, and only truly unique projects would get accepted.
The pushback is obviously for groups who spend a significant amount of time researching and putting the project together, brainstorming, etc. But great artists seek to share their paintings with the world. Great musicians share their music. What is the point of creating something truly amazing but no one can experience it? The music we listen to, we didn’t participate in the creation of those tracks, does that mean we cannot experience it?
Captain himself, SammyG as well, how much work, research, and time have they spent in the creation of all the fields that are available? Most of them provided for free via YouTube. Why should we be any different? Isn’t that what brought this community together in the first place? Sharing and caring for one another? Helping each other in whatever way we can, not necessarily asking for anything in return. Perhaps some of that was lost in the process of these Community Projects…
11 Likes
You’re making good points, I agree with you. The most amount of work or the core work is still what Captain does. The only thing the groups do is decide what they want and how it’s possible. To me (I have been in community projects and also lead one) I don’t see that as really much of an effort, especially since I liked the process and I’m sure others aswell. That exclusivity is really harmful because it brought out greed in many of the people on this forum. Even though I never sold an nft yet, I would include myself to that. People are partially contributing or even fully contributing to the projects that Captain creates, he sells them to you (not talking to anyone specific here) for 250$ and you sell them for 1’250& and make a profit of 1’000$? For that little work you had to do? That’s greedy as hell. This is what this market has become to. I’m very glad @Ugninis proposed that some of his projects are made for the majority so most of the people can benefit from it. But even than, Captain creates the field and you can buy it for 88$. Now you want to sell ut for 600$ and reap the benefits? You can say “hate the game not the player” but I think we can do better than that. That’s why I’d like future projects to be accessible for everyone as the privacy was not the reason for the creation of nfts but the piracy.
9 Likes
this had nothing to do with me
I led no project. Nor choose members
everyone was free to start their own.
20 Likes
I don’t think that’s what he meant. He meant that if the projects would be available to more people there would be less fields that are pretty similar and there wouldn’t be FOMO. He doesn’t like the exclusivity of these projects and I think if we could make them accessible for more people that would be better.
7 Likes