Community Governance, Really?

[StackHeap]

I wasn’t sure what title to pick, but I feel this one sums up my concerns and judgment on the current state of the DAO. It’s supposed to be a model of community governance, but honestly it seems pretty far from what you’d expect from something open and truly community driven. I’ve broken it down into three key issues.

1. A submission process that’s overly complex and discouraging

To submit a simple idea, like resizing a window (SIP-14) or adding a filter to the inventory (SIP-16), users must go through an unnecessarily cumbersome process. The process feels bureaucratic, like something you’d expect from a government office, not a community platform. This kind of setup just discourages users, especially those with quick, useful ideas that could make a difference.

In a true community driven governance model, submitting an idea should be an accessible and smooth process. Instead, this system does the opposite, it discourages contributors and risks overlooking meaningful suggestions.

2. Proposal curation that’s too centralized

Another major issue lies in the control over which proposals get published. A dedicated team (curation) must approve proposals before they’re put to a vote, which doesn’t feel very open at all. In a real community governed setup, any user should be able to submit an idea for voting and let the community decide.

Ironically, the feedback system on Discord currently feels much more community driven even though it’s rudimentary and not super visible. What’s needed is a more open approach, paired with moderation focused on filtering out harmful or non constructive content rather than gatekeeping user contributions.

3. An unfair voting system

Finally, the DAO’s voting system suffers from a fundamental fairness issue. Not all votes carry the same weight and power is concentrated in the hands of those who hold large amounts of SAND. This dynamic favors “whales” at the expense of regular users, whose engagement is often far more critical to the platform.

This creates a serious problem in a context where DAO decisions directly affect a UGC platform. The success of such a platform relies heavily on its community of creators and players. Yet, on average, these very users lack the means or opportunities to compete with the influence of major investors.

Wrapping It Up

If the DAO really aims to reflect community governance, I think it needs to fundamentally rethink its structure. Participation must become more accessible, decision-making less centralized and the voting system redesigned to better represent the interests of the entire community, not just the wealthiest investors.

[theKuntaMC]

@StackHeap

1. A submission process that’s overly complex and discouraging

To submit a simple idea, like resizing a window (SIP-14) or adding a filter to the inventory (SIP-16), users must go through an unnecessarily cumbersome process. The process feels bureaucratic, like something you’d expect from a government office, not a community platform. This kind of setup just discourages users, especially those with quick, useful ideas that could make a difference.

In a true community driven governance model, submitting an idea should be an accessible and smooth process. Instead, this system does the opposite, it discourages contributors and risks overlooking meaningful suggestions.

That simple idea isn’t actually that simple for the Devs who need to prioritize and implement the development of the feature. We’d actually need to give far more detailed directions before they can implement. So, the SIP is just the start.

We also need to use the SIP process for product development since we’re asking the Dev time to re-focus their energy on a community priority. So, it’s not just approving funds and defining the process, but also making sure it has more votes than a simple community consensus via poll or suggestion.

We have been trying to get a product Dev roadmap from TSB for a while, but they’re been fine-tuning something and they’re reluctant to share with us (and in turn, the wider world) since it will also give away some press opportunities as launch new features. We are trying to get this roadmap though, so the DAO community can internally prioritize what SIP we want to advance.

Now, for smaller matters (less funding, less game-focused, more DAO-centric), we can of course remain agile, leaning on the operational budget if we need to. An example of this is the gold check mark next to the DAO X handle, which some community members want. It will cost $10k and could come from the ops budget. So, instead of a SIP, we’re just running a community poll on the Forum (which also means that NOT everyone would see it, like they would a SIP, unless they’re scouring the Forums for new info)

[theKuntaMC]

All of that said, the DAO Admin Team is here to make the process as SIMPLE and EFFECTIVE as possible

So, we are VERY open to any suggestions for change.

Anyone who is reading this is invited to share their ideas for improvements!

[theKuntaMC]

@StackHeap

2. Proposal curation that’s too centralized

Another major issue lies in the control over which proposals get published. A dedicated team (curation) must approve proposals before they’re put to a vote, which doesn’t feel very open at all. In a real community-governed setup, any user should be able to submit an idea for voting and let the community decide.

Ironically, the feedback system on Discord currently feels much more community-driven even though it’s rudimentary and not super visible. What’s needed is a more open approach, paired with moderation focused on filtering out harmful or non-constructive content rather than gatekeeping user contributions.

We hope you’ll attend the SIP Training on the 16th!

The Sandbox DAO

That’s where you can learn more about the ins and outs of the process as it currently exists.

We can answer your questions there… and your attendance will probably help you to better come up with some solutions for the issues you’re observing.

Also, for now… a few points of clarity regarding the process:

1. Ideation & Forum Posting - Author + Community

• SIP Ideas
• Community Feedback
• Refine Ideas from the community before submitting the SIP

2. Submit SIP - Author

• Disclose motivations (signed off on code of conduct upon submission)
• Include relevant links, resources, visuals
• Include in-depth risk analysis inclusive of remediation plan for each risk
• Categorizing
• Ensuring Maintainability + scalability
• Budgeting & Financial Planning
• Setting Clear Milestones
• As specific as possible, and incremental (phases)
• Milestones must be agreed upon
• Should include $SAND and USD amounts
• Attaching Support Materials
• Banner

3. Review - DAO Admin Team + Councils

• Usually regarding milestones, finances, and helping authors promote themselves
• Council recommendation given

4. Curation - DAO Team + Author

• Admin works with Author/s to refine

5. Post for Discussion + DAO

• SIP Active → In discussion for 2 weeks

6. SIP Posted on Snapshot for voting for 2 weeks

[theKuntaMC]

@StackHeap

3. An unfair voting system

Finally, the DAO’s voting system suffers from a fundamental fairness issue. Not all votes carry the same weight and power is concentrated in the hands of those who hold large amounts of SAND. This dynamic favors “whales” at the expense of regular users, whose engagement is often far more critical to the platform.

This creates a serious problem in a context where DAO decisions directly affect a UGC platform. The success of such a platform relies heavily on its community of creators and players. Yet, on average, these very users lack the means or opportunities to compete with the influence of major investors.

If you have a more fair suggestion for a voting system, please submit the idea for community discussion!

Other DAOs (like Decentraland) have experimented with the “one player, one vote” option.

There are valid cases to be made for most possible models.

Where we are right now doesn’t need to be where we remain.

[StackHeap]

@theKuntaMC

That simple idea isn’t actually that simple for the Devs who need to prioritize and implement the development of the feature. We’d actually need to give far more detailed directions before they can implement. So, the SIP is just the start.

We also need to use the SIP process for product development since we’re asking the Dev time to re-focus their energy on a community priority. So, it’s not just approving funds and defining the process, but also making sure it has more votes than a simple community consensus via poll or suggestion.

Thanks for your reply, it helps understand the current constraints of the SIP process. That said, I think there’s a fundamental issue here with how the process is designed.

The way I see it, the initial role of a proposal in the DAO shouldn’t be about providing a fully detailed technical plan. The main goal should be to give the community a way to share their needs or ideas and gauge how popular they are. Once an idea has been validated or prioritized by the community, it should then be up to TSB and their development teams to assess its technical feasibility and work out the details needed for implementation. That responsibility shouldn’t fall on users, nor should it be entirely on the DAO team, it should serve as a bridge between the community and the company.

On the roadmap, thanks for bringing that up. I know it’s not the main focus here but it’s also one of the recurring asks from the community on the server, and for good reason. Without any visibility into what TSB is planning, working on, or aiming for, it’s really hard for the community to come up with ideas that align with the platform’s priorities. This lack of transparency creates a lot of frustration and makes true collaboration harder, especially in a space that’s supposed to be community driven. They might very well stay vague about future updates or even skip announcing some of them.

@theKuntaMC

That’s where you can learn more about the ins and outs of the process as it currently exists.

We can answer your questions there… and your attendance will probably help you to better come up with some solutions for the issues you’re observing.

Also, for now… a few points of clarity regarding the process:

This in a way highlights the bureaucratic side I mentioned earlier, and I still believe that the complexity of the process could be a barrier for many users, especially those without technical skills or experience in drafting detailed proposals. Also, the fact that training sessions are needed for the SIP process really shows how this has become somewhat exaggerated in terms of complexity.

I understand that all of this may be necessary for requests like big events or game jams, which require clear structure and detailed budgeting. But for cases like the ones I mentioned in my original message, this approach is really not suited at all.

Two different processes could be useful to solve this issue, the standard one as it exists now and another much simpler one, a sort of “mini-SIP,” which would bypass the unnecessary complexity for simple proposals or lighter ideas.

@theKuntaMC

If you have a more fair suggestion for a voting system, please submit the idea for community discussion!

Other DAOs (like Decentraland) have experimented with the “one player, one vote” option.

There are valid cases to be made for most possible models.

Where we are right now doesn’t need to be where we remain.

I’m not very familiar with Decentraland, but I think the “1 player = 1 vote” system is an excellent initiative. As I mentioned on Discord, it seems wrong to me that large holders have such decision making power in a DAO, especially when the decisions made directly affect the users. Presenting the DAO as a platform where regular users can truly make a difference seems a bit misleading in this context because we all know that “whales” have far more strategic weight than thousands of individual users, which undermines the principles of fair and community driven governance.

[theKuntaMC]

@StackHeap

the initial role of a proposal in the DAO shouldn’t be about providing a fully detailed technical plan. The main goal should be to give the community a way to share their needs or ideas

That is exactly what the first step is! Spot on!

Ideas can be developed by the community in SIP: Ideas.

@StackHeap

Once an idea has been validated or prioritized by the community, it should then be up to TSB and their development teams to assess its technical feasibility and work out the details needed for implementation. That responsibility shouldn’t fall on users, nor should it be entirely on the DAO team, it should serve as a bridge between the community and the company.

There is one intermediary step before a SIP goes to vote, and it has already proven to have pretty great value, even if it slows the process down a little

After ideas are discussed by SandFam in SIP: Ideas, they can then move on to the curation process. During curation, the DAO Admin Team helps authors get their SIP into a standardized format and work toward revisions that would lead to getting more votes and a positive recommendation from the SC.

Also, it’s important to note that all SIPs go “to the company,” as some are for other projects like the SANDDAO podcast, Community Council, etc

@StackHeap

Without any visibility into what TSB is planning, working on, or aiming for, it’s really hard for the community to come up with ideas that align with the platform’s priorities. This lack of transparency creates a lot of frustration and makes true collaboration harder, especially in a space that’s supposed to be community-driven. They might very well stay vague about future updates or even skip announcing some of them.

I personally agree with you 100% and the DAO Admin Team is working diligently to get a roadmap we can share!

@StackHeap

@theKuntaMC

We can answer your questions there… and your attendance will probably help you to better come up with some solutions for the issues you’re observing.

Also, for now… a few points of clarity regarding the process:

This in a way highlights the bureaucratic side I mentioned earlier, and I still believe that the complexity of the process could be a barrier for many users, especially those without technical skills or experience in drafting detailed proposals.

I am unclear how hosting a Training Workshop is “bureaucratic,” but we are building a government from the ground up. It won’t be easy. We will simplify as many things as possible, but there will always be some challenges that need improvement, especially as the needs of the community shift.

In regards to the technical skills required to write a SIP, we are building in solutions for that (since SIPs are the heart of what do at the DAO):

1. SIP Training will be translated into other languages and hosted in native languages in the months ahead
2. the Community Council can pick up strong SIP ideas and turn them into formal SIPs (perhaps to co-author with community members who otherwise couldn’t have drafted themselves).
4. [quote=“StackHeap, post:6, topic:1582”]
   I think the “1 player = 1 vote” system is an excellent initiative. As I mentioned on Discord, it seems wrong to me that large holders have such decision-making power in a DAO, especially when the decisions made directly affect the users. Presenting the DAO as a platform where regular users can truly make a difference seems a bit misleading in this context because we all know that “whales” have far more strategic weight
   [/quote]

Your concern here is very valid! And I’m sure others will want to weigh in.

“one player, one vote” has faced some challenges where it has been implemented, and I think @DAO may be able to better define some of them, as he was very active Decentraland DAO at the time.

All that said, being among those with under 20k VP myself, I understand personally the frustration of feeling like I have less power. Some of the built-in solutions for that could be delegate your VP to align with a larger group

[DAO]

To your question on VP, there’s really no perfect system, I know because I’ve been to and participated in multiple DAOs and nobody has a perfect system.

Here are a few examples I can share with you.

1. The one that you know right know, SAND and LAND = VP plain and simple. 5.

Pros: Every wallet, whale or not, is visible to the public eye. This is how you can come to conclusion that whales control the vote.

Cons: Whales control the vote.

2. 1 person per vote.

Pros: Sounds the fairest since you have to be a verified account on TSB.

Cons: Very much dependant on TSB’s proof of humanity features (centralised). Whales will not control the vote, farmers with hoardes of verified account will. Would you prefer the ones who farm your prize pool to oblivion be the controlling voters? Not to forget you’ll leave out people who’ve not been able to verify their accounts properly and technical issues.

3. Limiting the Max amount of VP each wallet can vote with.

Pros: limits the influence 1 wallet can have.

Cons: People will just split up their wallets, you’ll now not know who is who. Whales will control the vote, you’ll just not know who/how many.

4. Quadratic voting (e.g 1000 SAND= 1 VP, 4000 SAND= 2VP, 10000 SAND= 3 VP)

Pros: Seemingly the best way to diminish the VP of whale wallets.

Cons: Wallet split greatly reduces the diminishing effect of quadratic voting. Everyone gets diluted, but whale wallets still gain control just by splitting up, back to not knowing who’s the whale.

The best solution has been delegation, and while it’s in infancy here in TSB DAO, I’m optimistic seeing as how things are moving thus far.

If you have a solution I’m all ears.

[DrMetaverso]

My thoughts on the 1 player = 1 vote system,
I think it all depends on what was initially proposed to the early investors and the community.
In our case, the community was promised this system. I think it’s fair for everyone invested in The Sandbox (in any amount) to have VP tied to owning SAND, land, assets, avatars (on the roadmap), and for staking.
I believe investors, of any amount and capacity, should have a stronger say in decisions coming from the DAO. They’re the ones building and helping the ecosystem thrive, so why punish them?

For example, game devs and studios have invested money and time into building experiences in The Sandbox. They’re one of the main reasons players are here in the first place. Without these creators and studios and the incredible work they do, we wouldn’t have a UGC community. So, it doesn’t feel fair to give each entity just one vote.
I’m a dev with several Lands and some SAND; I’d be pissed if my VP was reduced to just 1. I can only imagine how someone with 1+ mil VP would feel!

Another important point: if a 1 to 1 system is considered, every player would need to go through KYC verification to prevent bot attacks. However, even KYC isn’t foolproof. We’ve all seen how they operated in previous Alpha seasons! and how easy it is to bypass KYC requirements.

[StackHeap]

@theKuntaMC

I am unclear how hosting a Training Workshop is “bureaucratic,” but we are building a government from the ground up. It won’t be easy. We will simplify as many things as possible, but there will always be some challenges that need improvement, especially as the needs of the community shift.

In regards to the technical skills required to write a SIP, we are building in solutions for that (since SIPs are the heart of what do at the DAO):

1. SIP Training will be translated into other languages and hosted in native languages in the months ahead
2. the Community Council can pick up strong SIP ideas and turn them into formal SIPs (perhaps to co-author with community members who otherwise couldn’t have drafted themselves).

Sorry if I wasn’t clear (I didn’t quote the correct part of your reply) but when I said “bureaucratic” I wasn’t referring to the concept of training workshops, which can definitely be helpful for those who want to get more involved, but the whole process of formalizing and publishing a proposal.

The community council picking up strong ideas does address part of my critique about accessibility but also reinforces the centralization (point 2). If the council can decide which ideas to formalize, what happens to ideas that are popular within the community but don’t align with their priorities or preferences ? How can you guarantee that all popular ideas will be taken seriously, regardless of the Council’s or admin’s view ?

Could a hybrid model be implemented where proposals for minor changes are entirely independent and free from any centralization ? As I mentioned earlier, it could take the form of mini SIPs, separate from the standard SIPs. These smaller proposals would serve purely as a more direct representation of the community’s requests without obligating TSB to implement every suggestion that gets voted on. It would essentially replicate the current system we have on Discord but with better tools and greater visibility.

[StackHeap]

Thanks for your detailed breakdown. There is no perfect solution that can solve all the issues mentioned and especially none that will satisfy everyone but I believe the choice of voting system should reflect the type of governance the DAO is aiming for. In the case of TSB, the DAO isn’t just about token economics where giving whales more influence makes sense. It’s about making decisions for a UGC platform where the community of creators and players plays a key role in driving the platform forward. It makes more sense to prioritize a system that’s more representative of the community rather than the concentration of SAND.

As for the bots, TSB has likely improved its detection methods, especially given the significant number of bans during Season 4. I’m sure there are several methods available as they’re not the only platform facing this issue.

[StackHeap]

@DrMetaverso

I believe investors, of any amount and capacity, should have a stronger say in decisions coming from the DAO. They’re the ones building and helping the ecosystem thrive, so why punish them?

I’m sorry, but I think you’re mixing two things here. Whales/investors are crucial for the vitality and stability of SAND, and we can definitely thank them for that. But they’re not the ones building the ecosystem, creators and players are the ones doing that. And many of them aren’t necessarily wealthy.

Take indie developers for example. They might not have the same budget as bigger studios but they’re still contributing just as much to the ecosystem, sometimes even more with limited resources. So, why should their VP be almost nonexistent, especially on issues like new Game Maker features which directly affect their work? The same goes for the players, who in most cases likely don’t have the same financial resources as investors. Yet, they’ve dedicated considerable time to events, providing valuable feedback and helping TSB fix countless bugs. Why should their vote carry so little weight?

[DrMetaverso]

Not at all, as I mentioned “investors of any capacity”. I’m an investor, but at the same time a game dev. So how is it fair that my collection for the past 4 years gives me only 1 VP , the same as a player who is just passing by to just play or earn some SAND?

It’s the player’s choice to be here to enjoy the games and in some cases earn some SAND. However, they shouldn’t have the same voting power as someone who has invested any amount in the ecosystem. Playing for fun and earning isn’t really investing, that’s the point I’m trying to make.

This is like an election. The SIP owner should advertise their SIPs and convince those ‘whales’ that their SIPs are worthwhile. Also, being a “whale” doesn’t demonize them. They are successful for a reason, and they might know something we don’t!

[DrMetaverso]

Players can still effectively participate in the DAO by rallying other players or community members behind an SIP, providing valuable feedback on the DAO forum to support SIP authors with their proposals, or championing an SIP themselves.

[StackHeap]

@DrMetaverso

Not at all, as I mentioned “investors of any capacity”. I’m an investor, but at the same time a game dev. So how is it fair that my collection for the past 4 years gives me only 1 VP , the same as a player who is just passing by to just play or earn some SAND?

It’s the player’s choice to be here to enjoy the games and in some cases earn some SAND. However, they shouldn’t have the same voting power as someone who has invested any amount in the ecosystem. Playing for fun and earning isn’t really investing, that’s the point I’m trying to make.

I don’t see why having an equal voting system would be unfair. TSB is a UGC platform and without players and creators there is no ecosystem, the platform wouldn’t exist. Both groups are equally essential to its succes, yet you’re placing financial investment above all else. The DAO is supposed to reflect the community in its votes and with this system it’s absolultely not the case.

@DrMetaverso

This is like an election. The SIP owner should advertise their SIPs and convince those ‘whales’ that their SIPs are worthwhile. Also, being a “whale” doesn’t demonize them. They are successful for a reason, and they might know something we don’t!

In an election, every vote carries the same weight, ensuring fairness and broad representation. The current system isn’t comparable as it concentrates the power in the hands of large investors with their own interests, resulting in representation for a minority rather than the community as a whole.

[theKuntaMC]

That was such an awesome breakdown, @DAO

You should make that into X post or a Thread!!

Great insights and clear breakdown of pros and cons.

[theKuntaMC]

@StackHeap

If the council can decide which ideas to formalize, what happens to ideas that are popular within the community but don’t align with their priorities or preferences?

How can you guarantee that all popular ideas will be taken seriously, regardless of the Council’s or admin’s view?

Could a hybrid model be implemented where proposals for minor changes are entirely independent and free from any centralization?

These are all great questions!

1. The council doesn’t decide which ideas to advance, nor does the Admin Team. These are upvoted by the community during the discussion. Those with a lot of support, are moved along.

Perhaps we could build more clarity around benchmarks for that process. But seeing as you’re hoping to simplify things, this would add a layer of complexity.

There will likely always be some level of centralization, which doesn’t have to be a bad thing if community checks and balances are put in place. This will be part of my discussion on “The Benefits of a Wrapped DAO” (which we are) when I record Ep-006 of DitS (asap).

2. To help guarantee that all popular ideas will be taken seriously, we’re hoping to implement the Community Council. Right now, it is based upon community sentiment in discussion, but the CC may come up with a more qualitative benchmark.

3. I am unsure if a hybrid model can be implemented where proposals for minor changes are entirely independent and free from any centralization. But if any community member comes up with a mechanism for doing so that makes sense and garners community support, it can be advanced as a SIP.

[theKuntaMC]

@StackHeap

In the case of TSB, the DAO isn’t just about token economics where giving whales more influence makes sense. It’s about making decisions for a UGC platform where the community of creators and players plays a key role in driving the platform forward. It makes more sense to prioritize a system that’s more representative of the community rather than the concentration of SAND

This is a rock-solid argument.

The question remains, what alternative makes the most sense?

@StackHeap

As for the bots, TSB has likely improved its detection methods, especially given the significant number of bans during Season 4. I’m sure there are several methods available as they’re not the only platform facing this issue.

Without a strong technical background personally, I can say that I don’t of any game that has awesome bot detection.

It seems like I saw a lot of actual players getting bans in AS4, but they also could have been bots, alt accounts, or even AI agents.

Having “reward farmers” running the DAO could be worse than having investors have more power than players… this is tough (but important conversation)

WHAT ARE OTHERS’ THOUGHTS?

You can always tag delegates if you want their input on how they’d support a particular SIP idea

[theKuntaMC]

@DrMetaverso

I’m an investor, but at the same time a game dev. So how is it fair that my collection for the past 4 years gives me only 1 VP , the same as a player who is just passing by to just play or earn some SAND?

Another rock-solid argument.

There are such strong cases to be made for different points of view here.

Great discussion.

[KCL]

Currently if you look back in all the SIPs vote I do not have the impression that we have an issue of Whale holding SANDs controlling the vote. The major holder of VP that have vote so far is because they are owning lands.
Maybe this will change in future where SANDs stake might give VP.
Traders or Binance and co holding big amount of Sands are not really interested into DAO voting.
The one currently that have VP whether you call them whale or not, are almost all as well players, other DAOs, creators, builders… And those, who are mostly part of the SandFam for several years, are maybe the best support to the community to defend TSB against control of bots or big guys that might want to harm or drive the project in a different way.
So now coming back on an innovative idea that you would have for TSB, this is like in IRL if you get a super innovative idea in your garden for a new tool and want a company (here TSB) to build it, you need to check if you have other people liking your idea (here the community), you need to advocate (here with DAO), you need to find inlfuencer or sponsor (here delegates or whales or houses) so that at the end it materialize and build it. If you are alone you cannot do it.

PS: I have about 200 lands and finished around 30th place in AS4 playing 70 days in a raw to not miss 1 daily challenge (with 0 referral) to get what +200 Sand at the end.
Am I whale or a player?