Framer 3.0 arrived before my first template was approved: A new creator’s perspective

The release of Framer 3.0 has created excitement, curiosity, and a fair amount of uncertainty within the Framer community.

Over the past few weeks, I have seen discussions from template creators who have built successful businesses on the platform. Many of them have spent years refining their products, growing their audience, and earning a steady income through the Framer marketplace. With the introduction of AI-powered workflows and major marketplace changes, some creators are understandably concerned about how the ecosystem might evolve.

As someone who is just beginning my journey as a Framer template creator, I experienced this transition from a completely different angle.

My first template was still waiting for approval

Like many new creators, I invested significant time designing, refining, and preparing my first template for submission. After completing the process, I submitted it to the marketplace and entered the approval stage.

At that point, I expected the traditional review process to take its course. The marketplace approval system seemed like an important quality checkpoint that ensured templates met certain standards before becoming available to customers.

However, something unexpected happened.

Before my template could receive approval, Framer 3.0 was released.

Shortly after the launch, my template appeared live on the marketplace without going through the approval process I had originally expected.

As a newcomer, this left me with mixed feelings.

The value of the traditional approval process

The previous approval system had several advantages.

For customers, it created confidence. Buyers could trust that templates available on the marketplace had been reviewed against quality standards. This helped maintain consistency across the ecosystem and reduced the likelihood of low-quality submissions reaching the marketplace.

For creators, approval often felt like a milestone. Having a template officially reviewed and accepted provided a sense of validation. It suggested that the work met the expectations of the platform and could compete alongside other professional products.

A curated marketplace often carries a perception of higher quality, which can benefit both creators and customers.

The benefits of open publishing

At the same time, the new approach introduces advantages that are difficult to ignore.

One of the biggest challenges for new creators is waiting.

Waiting for approval means waiting for feedback, waiting for visibility, and waiting for potential sales. During that period, creators have little control over the outcome.

An open publishing system removes much of this friction. Templates can reach the market faster, creators can iterate more quickly, and users can access a broader variety of products.

For new creators like myself, faster access means faster learning.

Instead of waiting weeks for approval, creators can publish, gather feedback, improve their products, and better understand customer needs.

In many ways, this approach aligns with the startup philosophy of launching early and improving continuously.

Why experienced creators are concerned

The concerns expressed by successful template creators are also understandable.

Many established sellers have spent years building credibility, trust, and visibility within a curated marketplace. If barriers to entry are lowered significantly, competition naturally increases.

More templates may lead to greater choice for customers, but it can also make discovery more challenging.

Creators who previously relied on strong marketplace positioning may now need to focus even more on branding, marketing, audience building, and differentiation.

The marketplace becomes less about simply being listed and more about standing out.

The real question

As I reflect on this experience, I find myself asking a simple question:

Which system is actually better?

Is a curated approval process the right approach because it protects quality and maintains marketplace standards?

Or is an open publishing model better because it empowers creators, reduces friction, and accelerates innovation?

The answer may not be as straightforward as choosing one over the other.

Perhaps the future lies somewhere in the middle — a system that allows creators to publish quickly while still providing quality signals, recommendations, or certifications that help customers identify exceptional work.

Looking ahead

Framer 3.0 represents more than a product update. It represents a shift in how creators participate in the ecosystem.

For established sellers, it introduces new challenges and opportunities.

For new creators like me, it removes barriers that previously slowed entry into the marketplace.

My first template became part of this transition almost by accident. What began as a standard approval submission turned into an unexpected launch experience.

Now, rather than focusing on whether the old system or the new system is better, I believe the most important question is how creators adapt to the changes ahead.

The marketplace will continue evolving. The tools will continue improving. Competition will continue growing.

And ultimately, the creators who consistently provide value, solve real problems, and build meaningful experiences will likely find success regardless of the process that gets their templates published.

What are your thoughts?

Do you prefer the traditional approval-based marketplace, or do you think Framer’s new open publishing approach is the right direction for the future?