I had the same impression as well. And I agree with you, well said!
we need those community members to protect the TSB.
PS: You are both! An investor and a player.
1 Like
We considered using quadratic voting for the longest time when working on the constitution, but only if paired with a mechanism to avoid Sybil attack (the action of splitting your wallet into smaller one to inflate your VP). Finally it was abandoned as judged to complex to be grasp by a diverse community. Nobody is necessarily confortable with square root over multiple token and things like that. (And I could not find a Sybil prevention system that satisfied me)
The current system is easier to understand. The more token you have the more your VP weight in the balance. The multiplier associated to LAND (4500) is the combinaison of standard LAND prices and premium LAND prices as we wanted to reward LAND ownership.
A LAND being more expensive than SAND, we assume LAND owner are more committed on the long term.
1 person 1 vote seems more democratic and was abandoned as it does not reward token ownership
2 Likes
GM
In a nutshell:
- fast turnaround = centralisation
- Democratic process (albeit slow) = decentralisation.
Spoiler: We are currently working on a system of « questbook » internally to have a hybrid approach, that will empower the community even more for smaller scale projects. This will be pushed after the 2025 SIP budget, keep an eye on that!
Re the SIP process: I hear you. There is a very simple workflow that explain de steps on the website.
Basically:
community idea → curation → vote.
The devils lies into which SIP gets curated and which is not. Not all ideas are equal and the team in charge of the curation has only 4 hands. So we have to make choices. To do so we are looking at community engagement arround the idea (are they a lot of people interested, number of replies, votes, reactions etc). Maybe in the future we will get so good that we can curate everything. And in a more distant future we won’t need curation at all!
For now we still believe curation is necessary has we want SIP to be written in a professional way to be understood by all and not everybody is a professional at detailing a projet.
I can ensure you we are working hard to streamline this as much as possible. Our goal is to process as many « SIPS per minutes » as we can.
2 Likes
GM Stack!
I authored SIP-14 & SIP-16 that you referenced. The way I see it, the SIP process allowed me (a community member) to have another opportunity to communicate with TSB on longstanding requests by gamers, Vox Editors, and Game Makers…something we’ve been requesting since I joined in 2021.
The SIP process enabled this to happen, and SIP-16 carried the weight of the organized community behind it when it passed. The SIP process is a new way to effect change.
That’s the way I see it 
2 Likes
On one hand, there is the risk of farmers or bots manipulating the vote, but with adjustable detection systems this risk could be reduced over time. On the other hand, there are whales and investors who might be impossible to counter if their votes go against proposals that benefit the community and the platform, simply because those proposals don’t align with their own interests, which may not always align with TSB’s goals. In both cases there is a vulnerability.
I’m not denying that some whales or investors are also players and creators, but the problem with what you’re saying is that, regardless of their involvement as players or creators, their contribution to TSB ultimately doesn’t matter because the only thing that counts in the current system is financial contribution. So, how can the DAO claim that the vote reflects the community’s expectations? That doesn’t really make sense as it’s not representative at all.
You probably have a significant VP , but what would you say if a whale showed up with a VP 100 or even 1000 times greater than yours, without ever having been involved in the platform, and had such a large influence that they could block any SIP you propose? Would you find that normal? It’s the same principle here, just on a different scale, but everything is relative.
Honestly, this approach wouldn’t be reasonable for simple requests like improvements to TSB’s products. I shouldn’t have to depend on the support of influencers, large SAND/LAND holders or the DAO team just to request something as basic as adding a visual node to Game Maker or enabling the option to mark assets as favorites on the website. Do you know how long it took me to make my suggestion through the Discord feedback system? Five minutes. Once published, a part of the community could vote and quickly assess whether the idea was relevant
This change is a step in the right direction. The issue with curation still exists but if it’s removed in the future, that would be a great development. I’ll be following how things progress. Thanks!
These were two good proposals, I’m just a bit disappointed that the window resizing didn’t pass. 
2 Likes
I don’t want my words to be misunderstood but I’ve noticed that most of the replies I’ve received comes from individuals who are deeply involved in the DAO, often with shared interests (team members, admins, investors etc…). This gives the impression of consensus and it seems I’m the only one presenting a different viewpoint. I doubt this discussion will lead to much without broader and more diverse opinions.
Anyway, I wanted to share my perspective as someone outside the DAO and it would be great if more community members did the same since I’m just one player and Discord member.
4 Likes
You’re right in noticing that most of us here who have replied are pretty involved with the DAO.
I’d like to say that I appreciate you sharing your thoughts in a collected way. All of the points that you’ve brought up with processes, the admin team is keenly aware of because it’s consistent with the feedback they’ve received, and they are streamlining the process to make it less tedious.
As to the issue with voting, it’ll likely be a common and recurring topic here in the foreseeable future, but at no fault of anyone in the DAO, because there isn’t a perfect model. Still, I can say that I’m confident in the existing system. Pull up the recent few SIPs and you’ll see that almost all of the top whale voters are very well intertwined with the community. Builders, independent creators, studios, players, community members. Each one of them bears at least 2 of those titles.
2 Likes
I know right!!! Aww, thanks. Well I resubmitted the window resizing SIP per the rules. It should make its way back to the voting queue.
Yeah a number of us wear lots of different hats (landowner, avatar holder, experience publisher, etc) and we try to disclose our associations as best we can. I for one am glad you’re here and I hope you don’t feel that you’re being attacked or made a pariah. I certainly don’t think that when reading your thoughts.
If you look at some of the recent SIPs, you’ll see TONS of disagreement. Shoot, my SIP-18 just failed with majority NO vote a couple days ago. Plenty of disagreement there.
3 Likes
I think this has been an incredibly substantive conversation you’ve started, @StackHeap, and I think everyone on this thread is glad you opened the conversation.
As @DAO stated, you’re very observant in seeing the responses here are all people involved with the DAO somehow.
We’d LOVE more people from the broader TSB gaming community to get involved here. If you know other people from the TSB Discord server well enough to encourage them to jump into these forums, we’d LOVE their input and ideas.
This is not the first (and certainly not the last) time that VOTING MECHANISMS will be brought up. It’s an important (ongoing) discussion within most DAOs.
If you ever feel you’ve got a strong enough argument in favor of any changes at all, to TSB or the DAO, you’re always welcome to start these kinda discussions and garner community support for your idea. Then, if your idea is received well by others, you can author or co-author a SIP to bring the idea to life!
Thanks again for starting this conversation!
2 Likes
During our discussion on discord I propose you to start a discussion in this forum and I am glad that you did. Yes maybe at the moment you only received anwsers from people involved into the DAO but you are paving the way for others to join. And your opinion is as good as mine we are juste debating and debating is somehow DAOing.
3 Likes
We’re a SIP Factory 
lol
But, imagine the implications of just 1 SIP per day.
We’d be voting on so much!! Too much to keep up with.
Resurrecting this. How’s the gold checkmark coming along? Did it hit a snag?
Forgive me for picking back up the Gold Check convo.
Snags:
- Conservation of our limited ops budget (especially when 2025 has not yet been ratified) + weighing the clear returns of the investment
- The original idea carried extra value since we were thinking about giving “affiliate” badges to our Delegates, Allocators, and Admin. That would mean the DAO logo is next to their names, enhancing our visibility and credibility. However, two points were raised about this during discussion:
a – each affiliate costs us an extra $50 USD/month
b – affiliate badges would directly tie the DAO’s credibility, reputation, and public trust to accounts that we cannot monitor for content that may be offensive, misleading, or controversial
Happy to keep the conversation moving.
Is this thread the best place for it, though?
Maybe we cut n paste some of this relevant info to a new thread if others wanna keep this convo alive?
- Conservation of our limited ops budget (especially when 2025 has not yet been ratified) + weighing the clear returns of the investment
From what I’ve gathered, we have about $3 million left in our budget. Ops has about $500K per the dashboard I think. $10K seems affordable in either case, but perhaps it’s better as a SIP so that it can access the $3M? I don’t mind drafting that up.
affiliate badges would directly tie the DAO’s credibility
That’s true. All fair. I think if I were fairly evaluating TSB DAO’s existing status, I believe the benefit outweighs the risk. I feel like we’re leaving earning status on the table each time one of us participates in X spaces without that imagery there…feels like a lost opportunity.
each affiliate costs us an extra $50 USD/month
$50 per affiliate as in if there are 12 delegates, that equals 12 affiliates costing $50/month = $600 extra a month?
1 Like
Personally, I pay little attention to the budget : )
But I know Juampi and Cyril very closely monitor it.
I am unclear if the dashboard is fully reflective of funds that are earmarked for upcoming expenses, but I imagine if it says $500k that the bulk of that is “already spent,” as they say.
Seems like a SIP for this would be very straight-forward. The decision would then rest in the hands of the community and the funds would be drawn from a significantly better lined pot of money.
Breaking this down a bit further…
12 delegates + 4 DA’s + Kunta & Cyril + any highly-active SC or AB member who might wanna sport the DAOs’ badge on their X = Maybe 20 or so badges
20 badges x $50 x 12 months = $12k/year
$10k year for Premium + $12k/year for badges = $22k/year
Of course, those numbers are assuming badges all around (and ignoring the risk factor outlined above, which should also be included in the SIPs risk analysis)
2 Likes
Interesting. Well then I think I’d be satisfied with just @TheSandboxDAO having the gold checkmark. You’re pretty active in X spaces.
1 Like
Your call, ser! 
a SIP from the community is out of my hands : )
The conversation internally re: gold check on X has been deprioritized (but not killed) due to the concerns outlined above, but it could still be implemented under conditions that appease the majority and protect the DAO.
1 Like
I agree with @Lanzer, just the main account having the gold mark will suffice.
2 Likes