Abolish THESANDBOX's Centralized Player Ban Authority to Uphold WEB3 Principles

💡 SIP: Ideas All Ideas
1

Background and Current Issues

As a blockchain game rooted in WEB3 ideals, THESANDBOX GAME has drifted away from the principles of decentralization and user sovereignty by implementing arbitrary player bans. These actions undermine community trust and threaten the foundational values of a decentralized ecosystem.

In the earlier Season 1 and Season 2, the game flourished under an open and fair environment, where players could freely participate without fear of unjust penalties. However, issues began surfacing in Season 3, where players faced bans over leaderboard disputes and were required to provide video evidence to appeal such actions. By Season 4, the situation worsened as bans based on IP addresses became widespread, sparking significant backlash.

Key Problems

  1. Misalignment with WEB3 Principles
    WEB3 represents freedom, decentralization, and user control. However, the power of THESANDBOX GAME’s official team to ban players at their discretion mirrors the centralized authority of WEB2 platforms, eroding the decentralization that WEB3 games are meant to promote.

  2. Lack of Transparency and Due Process
    Player bans are often carried out without clear, transparent guidelines or justifications. This opaque decision-making process alienates users and fosters distrust in the game’s management.

  3. Unfair Burden on Players
    Requiring banned players to provide video evidence to prove their innocence shifts the responsibility unfairly onto the users. This is both burdensome and counterproductive, as it contradicts the ethos of trust and user-centric design in WEB3.

  4. Regional Discrimination Through IP Bans
    The use of IP-based bans disproportionately affects players in certain regions, limiting global inclusivity and participation—a core value of WEB3.

  5. Historical Examples of WEB3 Failures
    The misuse of centralized control in other WEB3 projects, such as DAO collapses due to central decision-making or uneven enforcement of rules, demonstrates how such practices erode trust and stifle community growth. THESANDBOX risks repeating these mistakes.

Proposed Solutions

To address these issues and uphold the values of WEB3, we propose the following:

  1. Establish a Community Arbitration Council
    A DAO-elected arbitration council should handle disputes related to bans. This ensures fairness and transparency while removing unilateral decision-making power from the official team.

  2. Implement Blockchain-Based Ban Records
    Use smart contracts to record ban decisions and their justifications on the blockchain. This will provide immutable and transparent records of all actions, ensuring accountability.

  3. Abolish IP-Based Bans
    Replace IP bans with more inclusive and sophisticated compliance tools that do not unfairly target players based on their geographic location.

  4. Restore the Spirit of WEB3 from Season 1 and 2
    Draw lessons from the more decentralized and open governance models used in Seasons 1 and 2, where community engagement and trust were at their peak. For example, early seasons featured minimal interference from the official team, fostering a competitive and fair environment for all participants.

Additional Examples to Strengthen the Case

  • Axie Infinity’s Transparency Model
    Despite facing significant challenges, Axie Infinity has embraced transparency by publicly addressing community concerns and ensuring fairness through clear rules. THESANDBOX can adopt similar practices to regain trust.

  • Uniswap DAO Governance Success
    The Uniswap DAO effectively governs decisions related to its ecosystem, demonstrating how decentralized models can create robust and fair systems. Introducing an arbitration mechanism inspired by such examples can benefit THESANDBOX.

  • Decentraland’s User Empowerment
    Decentraland’s DAO empowers users to vote on land disputes and other key decisions, fostering a strong sense of ownership and participation. A comparable community-driven approach could resolve ban-related disputes in THESANDBOX GAME.

Benefits of the Proposal

  1. Alignment with WEB3 Principles
    Removing centralized ban authority will ensure that THESANDBOX aligns with the core ideals of decentralization, user freedom, and transparency.

  2. Restoration of Community Trust
    By transferring dispute resolution to a transparent and decentralized process, the game will rebuild trust with its user base.

  3. Global Inclusivity
    Eliminating IP-based bans will enable players from all regions to participate freely, fostering a truly global community.

  4. Sustainable Growth for the Ecosystem
    By empowering users and removing centralized control, THESANDBOX can position itself as a leader in the WEB3 gaming space, attracting more players, developers, and investors.

Conclusion

To ensure the long-term success of THESANDBOX GAME as a WEB3 pioneer, it is critical to abolish the centralized ban authority and adopt a more community-driven approach. We urge all DAO members to support this proposal and champion the principles of decentralization, transparency, and fairness.

Let us work together to create a future where THESANDBOX GAME truly reflects the spirit of WEB3—a world of freedom, inclusivity, and trust.

2 Likes
2

What will your recommended solution be in terms of bots?

3

I do not share your view @xummer. I am a gamer and I do not suffer from any ban in season 4. I am enjoying the season and TSB is doing great job to protect legit players from bots.

1 Like
4

Amen to this idea. Go on the Discord. Hundreds of people there complaining about unjust bans with no recourse and no explanation.

@KCL I realize you’ve not been banned yet, so this doesn’t directly affect you, but I would read this and see if it changes your view: First they came ... - Wikipedia…

5

I wish there was a way to be more transparent about bans to fix false positives, but the truth is that many of the people you see complaining about being banned are fairly banned for multi-accounting schemes and false positives are a very small percentage of the overall bans.

When the Discord and Jira tickets seem overburdened with a flood of complaints, it’s often because of botting users who are trying to drain the reward pool, so the legitimate complaints are in a sea of bad actors complaining that they can’t claim more than their fair share anymore.

I do believe we can do better and be more responsive, but decentralizing player moderation makes the systems that protect against bot scammers more exposed and vulnerable. A proposal like this is opening a door wide to attackers. I believe you have the best of intentions Xummer, but this is one aspect where decentralizing would have the potential to ruin everything and leave all of the SAND rewards in the hands of those who just want to extract money from the community and cash out.

2 Likes
6

Your observation of the banning problem is incorrect.

Season 1 and 2 had Multi accounts, bots and cheating. This is the smoothest season so far.

I think the current approach is right. The problem is that the support part and the review part takes a long time.

2 Likes
7

I’ve been told the same from other staffs within TSB as well (and I suspected so too). Even in Telegram chats it’s obvious that most of the complainers are typically botters/multi accounter, in their last ditch attempt to convince ppl that TSB is doing a bad job at banning accounts, kinda like a psyop.

2 Likes
8

I find this specifically hilarious because it was clearly written by chatgpt. Agree with everything said here, especially want to follow up in the intern’s point:

The bots we knew from runescape and WoW have evolved, they can speak now. They will go on twitter and forums and try to make you scared that Sandbox is doing horrible things to honest players, so they can make bot restrictions more lenient. Don’t let them psych you out.

You should only get worried if your friends and people you trust in the community start being banned and denied appeals.

3 Likes
9

I stand by my statement above. BUT. My friends and people I trust in the community have begun being banned. So I will* concede it may be an issue.

1 Like
10

This may be a thread of interest for you, @DAO, as you’re dealing with a ban personally, are you not?

With some discussion and thoughtful consideration, there is probably a way to help ensure players who are trusted members of the Sandfam community can demonstrate they are not violating any terms.

Thanks for chiming back in here, @cryptodiplo

2 Likes
11

Someway, somehow, I missed this thread.

I agree with the OP’s point of view. Whether or not it’s written by Chat GPT, I think it’s very, very well written and the core principle remains crystal clear. How do web2 centralized player bans adhere to web3 principles?

I have heard of how bad the bans got during Season 3 and 4 but never experienced a ban myself. Do we have any community members who did get banned that can speak on this?

@KamiSawZe 's reply gave some great insight that should factor into this conversation. No enforcement seems too far, as does centralized banning. What does decentralized banning even look like?

1 Like
12

I’ve recently been unbanned phew thanks to the TSB SEA team.

Tbh, no idea. This matters are typically handled by the companies themselves (not only TSB). But the parameters can be improved in TSB’s case.

1 Like
13

I wonder if we couldn’t pass a SIP about what violations we consider bannable, and then coordinate with TSB to honor that SIP as their official position.

1 Like
14

So what if this was written with the help of ChatGPT? These open-source tools exist for a reason — to empower users, help organize thoughts, and clearly express ideas. Isn’t that the whole point of Web3? To democratize creation and access to knowledge? （power by ChatGPT)

1. TheSandbox promotes a “Play-to-Earn” (P2E) model, yet bans players for having multiple accounts.

This is fundamentally contradictory. If it’s truly a P2E ecosystem, then users should be free to maximize their time and effort within fair boundaries. Managing multiple accounts manually without automation or bots still requires effort. Why penalize it?

2. During every season wrap-up, TheSandbox proudly publishes participation numbers — player count, hours played, etc.

But wait — aren’t those inflated by multiple accounts? If you’re going to ban players later for having multiple accounts, why not exclude them from the stats in the first place? You can’t have it both ways — using these users to boost engagement metrics, then banning them post-facto.

3. Multi-account players still play the game manually.

They don’t harm other players. They don’t hack!. They invest time and money just like everyone else — buying $SAND, purchasing NFTs, avatars, land — to compete in Alpha Seasons or event. Isn’t that P2E in its truest form?

4. These players reinvest their rewards.

After receiving rewards, many reinvest in the ecosystem — buying NFTs, equipment, land, etc. That stimulates the in-game economy. That’s what healthy game ecosystems should want — retention and reinvestment.

5. Unless players are using bots, hacks, or third-party automation that disrupts the game balance, why ban them?

They are helping your economy. They’re boosting your user metrics. Then you take their money, their time, and ban them with a vague “fraudulent activity” excuse? That’s not just unfair — it’s Web2 behavior in Web3 clothing even more worst.

6. Even Web2 games tolerate multi-accounting.

MMORPGs often have players running multiple accounts to farm gear, trade, or bring liquidity to marketplaces. Why is a Web3 project more restrictive than traditional games?

7. Players invest their own money, spend time grinding, sharing the experience, and contributing to the ecosystem.

Then suddenly get banned with a canned message like:

“Your account has been flagged for fraudulent activity. We cannot provide further information.”
No transparency, Is this how a decentralized Web3 platform should operate?

8. This isn’t Web3 — it’s worse than Web2.

Web3 was supposed to mean ownership, transparency, and fairness. But what we’re seeing is centralized, opaque, and punitive decision-making that punishes loyal contributors.

9. If you’re going to ban players for multi-accounting, then stop advertising P2E.

Don’t sell people a vision of rewards-for-effort if the rules are vague, inconsistently enforced, and used to rug them later. Time + Money = Zero return is not a sustainable model.

10. Community trust is being eroded.

When you punish your most active users with vague bans and no recourse, you’re sending a clear message: You are expendable. That destroys community trust and long-term loyalty.

11. If participation is a risk, fewer players will invest time or money.

What rational player will buy NFTs, land, or avatars if they fear their account might be banned later — for unclear reasons, with no chance of defending themselves?

“You won’t feel the pain until it happens to you. When your account gets banned for no clear reason, then you’ll finally understand.”
Don’t wait until it’s your wallet, your time, your effort — gone without explanation. Then it’s too late.

1 Like
15

Hello Xummer,

Thank you for taking the time to write this proposal

As you can read in the forum comments about your proposal, we do work hard to ensure that real, legitimate players are actually protected and to identify

We will never reveal how we identify bots and cheaters attempting to abuse the system, but here are some obvious parameters we take into account

  • multiple accounts sharing the same address or ip address
  • identity of the user does not match the country where they are playing and is part of a larger similar pattern
  • users playing from non authorized countries as per the terms of use
  • unhuman behaviors in completing quests and missions

Most of the people who are “vocal” on forums and social media have been confronted with abusing the system and being cheaters and we have on purpose not publicly shamed them by providing proof of their misbehaviors.

Is this something your proposal is recommending us to do and expose cheaters publicly and transparently on chain as well?

While we preserve privacy and rights of users and invite people to move on, we know bad actors are trying their best to hurt the sentiment in the community

We are already leading by example by having one of the best protections in place and we’re seeing the positive feedback from the legitimate players and will continue to improve on this over time

Kind regards

Sebastien

2 Likes
16

Dear Sebastien,

Thank you for taking the time to respond and engage with my SIP proposal. I appreciate your ongoing work to protect the ecosystem and ensure the integrity of TheSandbox platform. However, I’d like to respectfully address a number of critical concerns that remain unresolved — concerns that I believe reflect the experiences of a growing portion of the community.

1. The contradiction between P2E and the banning of multi-account players

TheSandbox promotes a Play-to-Earn (P2E) model, yet bans players for having multiple accounts — even when they’re managed manually, without bots or automation. This is fundamentally contradictory. Isn’t the essence of P2E to reward players who dedicate time and effort? If a player chooses to invest more time across multiple accounts — manually — how is that abuse?

2. Inflated metrics used in public reporting

During season wrap-ups, TheSandbox proudly shares engagement metrics: number of players, hours played, etc. Are multi-account users being included in these stats? If yes, it seems inconsistent to use these users to boost metrics, only to later label them as fraudulent and ban them after rewards are due.

3. Multi-account players are active participants — not bots

These users are investing real money in $SAND, NFTs, avatars, and land. They play manually and fairly, and contribute to the ecosystem just like everyone else. Why should they be punished for deeper engagement?

4. They also reinvest rewards back into the economy

This kind of player behavior — earning rewards and reinvesting in assets to rejoin future events — is exactly what a sustainable Web3 gaming economy needs. Banning them discourages reinvestment and retention.

5. Unless players are clearly using bots, hacks, or third-party automation, why ban them?

If their behavior isn’t affecting game balance or harming others, banning them without transparent reasoning creates more harm than good. It alienates your most engaged users and sends the wrong message.

6. Even traditional Web2 games tolerate multi-accounting

Many MMORPGs have players running multiple accounts to farm, trade, or bring liquidity to player markets. Why is TheSandbox — a Web3 platform — more restrictive than legacy gaming ecosystems?

7. We understand the need to protect anti-fraud methods — but transparency and fairness must still exist

It’s reasonable not to disclose every detail of how fraud is detected, to avoid giving bad actors a playbook. However, that cannot come at the expense of honest users being left in the dark with no way to defend themselves.

There must be a middle ground — a transparent appeals process, or at least a category of violation explained to the user, so they understand what rule they allegedly broke and can respond. Without this, players are punished without trial — and that’s not Web3, that’s authoritarian.

8. Web3 principles are being violated

What we’re seeing is centralized, opaque decision-making. That’s the opposite of Web3’s promise: transparency, ownership, and fairness. The current system feels more punitive than protective — and in fact, worse than many Web2 platforms.

9. If multi-accounting is not allowed, why promote a P2E model?

Players invest time, effort, and money in pursuit of rewards. If the rules are vague or inconsistently applied — and result in users getting banned with no warning or process — then P2E becomes a misleading promise.

10. Community trust is eroding

Banning loyal players with vague justifications and no recourse tells the community: Your time and money don’t matter. That kind of message destroys long-term trust and weakens the foundation of your player base.

11. Uncertainty leads to hesitation in spending or participation

If players feel they could be banned at any time for unexplained “fraudulent activity,” they’ll stop buying NFTs, land, and avatars. This fear undermines both user participation and the broader in-game economy.

1 Like
17

Hello Xummer

Thank you for continuing the conversation over the Forum and providing your answers

I’m supportive of designing frameworks and solutions that meet the needs of the community without compromising the security for human players – so taking inputs from the DAO here on this matter will be great

thx

seb

1 Like