I have mixed feelings about @Framer removing the template review process.

On one hand, I understand the business decision. Reviews take time, cost money, and can become a bottleneck as the marketplace grows.

But on the other hand, getting a template accepted felt special.

Knowing that your work had been reviewed by other designers, scrutinised and ultimately approved gave a real sense of accomplishment. It wasn't just about getting listed in the marketplace, it was validation from peers that your work met a certain standard. The confidence boost and satisfaction were huge.

Now that anyone can publish anything, that signal is gone. The marketplace becomes more open, but also less meaningful as a mark of quality.

Personally, I think there could have been a middle ground. If reviewing every submission internally became too resource-intensive, why not empower a group of trusted creators and experts to help review and curate templates? I imagine many would happily contribute, perhaps even voluntarily, simply because they care about maintaining the quality of the ecosystem.

Framer is still my favourite tool by a mile. What the team has achieved is incredible, and they deserve enormous credit for it. This is just one of the few decisions where I'm not convinced growth and openness should come at the expense of curation and recognition.

I have mixed feelings about @Framer removing the template review process.

On one hand, I understand the business decision. Reviews take time, cost money, and can become a bottleneck as the marketplace grows.

But on the other hand, getting a template accepted felt special.

Knowing that your work had been reviewed by other designers, scrutinised and ultimately approved gave a real sense of accomplishment. It wasn't just about getting listed in the marketplace, it was validation from peers that your work met a certain standard. The confidence boost and satisfaction were huge.

Now that anyone can publish anything, that signal is gone. The marketplace becomes more open, but also less meaningful as a mark of quality.

Personally, I think there could have been a middle ground. If reviewing every submission internally became too resource-intensive, why not empower a group of trusted creators and experts to help review and curate templates? I imagine many would happily contribute, perhaps even voluntarily, simply because they care about maintaining the quality of the ecosystem.

Framer is still my favourite tool by a mile. What the team has achieved is incredible, and they deserve enormous credit for it. This is just one of the few decisions where I'm not convinced growth and openness should come at the expense of curation and recognition.