Establishing "the SAND Chest" to reward Content Creators

💡 SIP: Ideas All Ideas
1

Don’t forget to click the blue VOTE button!

image
image505×121 10.1 KB

SIP-18 (funding SANDDAO) sparked a HUGE debate, and one thing came out loud and clear was the support for a consolidated SIP that rewards/funds the many content creators across the Sandbox.

Click here for the context of this post

@DAO (The Intern) mentioned ApeCoin DAO’s ThankApe, which is a dApp that rewards contributors for achieve certain milestones that benefit the ApeCoin DAO community (such as " Host an X/Twitter space for your ApeChain NFT or Memecoin community and achieve 200 listens")

image
image909×271 25.7 KB

then @KamiSawZe suggested having a community boost chest that rewards streamers (and content creators?)

image
image887×361 52.6 KB

@SirAlokin suggested something where any streamer who dedicates time to the Sandbox can receive some contribution

image
image920×707 83.8 KB

Between them they received over 15 post likes, including my own.

First and foremost, I invite @SirAlokin & @KamiSawZe up here as coauthors (sorry @DAO you’re a Delegate so I can’t invite you :joy: :rofl:!) and I credit them with a mixture of this idea and I completely agree with Kami that the rules need to be clear.

  1. I propose we earmark a certain amount of $SAND from the upcoming budget SIP at the end of January from TSB Game Company yearly SAND donation

  2. I propose we create a Sand Chest out of that earmarked amount

  3. I propose that we create a transparent system that distributes rewards to TSB content creators. Perhaps we use an objective metric like https://socialblade.com/ to rank all content creators and then distribute % to each of the top X every month? However we do it, it needs to be reviewable/auditable by the community.

  4. Content creators will be defined as anyone who publishes live or recorded content to the internet, some examples being Twitch livestream, YouTube VODs, Tiktok shorts, X/Twitter spaces.

Sticky subjects:

  • TSB’s main channel features some content creators and that get boosted views when they wouldn’t have ordinarily received them…it that an unfair competitive advantage?
  • Rank ordering by total views or live views incentivizes content creators to focus on this to an excessive degree that becomes counterproductive…how do we balance openly audited metrics with effective metrics?

Thoughts, everyone?

7 Likes
2

Haha no worries about that. I’m glad to see something similar to ThankApe get it’s moment.

I’m not entirely sure as to how ThankApe did it but I believe Thrive Protocol is part of the AIP(Ape Improvement Proposal).

2 Likes
3

Yeah, I found these two AIPs that were related to it

3 Likes
4

I really like the idea. We have Builders challenges for builders and Events for players. it would make sense from marketing stand of point to have a prize pool of some sort for content creators!

We could leverage the KOL Ambassador role’s criteria for compensation on this one as a starting point.

This is the main question! I know there are a lot of bots out there, people will use them once they find out there will be an incentive. Not sure but if :

  1. If the metrics are based on frequency and quality of posts rather than viewership, then it wouldn’t be fair to the big creators.

  2. If the metrics are based on viewership, then botting will start and the small creators will be affected.

This is a tough one!

1 Like
5

You should combine qualitative metrics with quantitative metrics. Relying on quantitative metrics alone isn’t fair and isn’t immune to bots.

Quantitative Metrics:

  • Number of unique views.
  • Video duration.
  • Forum/Discord/video comment participation with useful answers.

I propose avoiding likes, retweets, and quotes, as they can be easily manipulated through fraudulent services.

Qualitative Metrics:

  • Is it a short video, trailer, or long-form video?
  • Is it posted/streamed across different platforms?
  • Is the video useful to the audience?
  • Does it help the audience stay updated?
  • Does it show tutorials?
  • Does it reveal tricks to complete the game?
  • Is it only gameplay footage?
  • Does it provide a review of an experience?

Each question can contribute points to the final score.

Proposed Scoring Formula:

(Quantitative Points × 0.2) + (Qualitative Points × 0.8)

This formula emphasizes quality over quantity, ensuring valuable contributions are prioritized.

It’s just an idea, but I believe it could work. Each streamer should fill out a registration form, including their streaming address, to allow proper evaluation.

Let me know if you’d like further refinements! :blush:

5 Likes
6

Excellent. I love it @SirAlokin. Building on that…what if we separate the content creators into categories: streamers, long-form videos, short-form videos? That way, content creator metrics are being applied relatively similar

And then each category gets your formula applied to them

4 Likes
7

I like this idea, would still need work as such an idea will have to be a part of the SIP!

I foresee an issue with tabulating the scores. Who do you think should be tasked with this? Obviously, we will need to budget for it. but in general, would this be ran by the TSB or the DAO! - questions for all I guess :smiley:

2 Likes
8

If we fund a position to do this, we should make it the DAO. The way the Ambassador program transitioned to DAO-funded/TSB Company managed made me feel all weird.

@DrMetaverso & @SirAlokin , don’t forget to vote for this SIP idea please! I think this is how the DAO Admin Team measures if it’s a worthy invitation to submitting a SIP.

3 Likes
9

I was also thinking. I think we should do it like ThankApe.com

Instead of making it a contest between streamers, which incentivizes rivalry, competitive advantages…maybe we allocate X amount of SAND and make put quests out there for content creators to do, such as:

  • Earn X views on a YouTube video
  • Earn X likes on a Tweet

And we dApp it to where people connect their social media account through oauth, it checks the account for the milestone, then pays it out to a connected wallet.

People can claim it once per month? And to keep it from getting exploited, whatever tweet is checked it will count it against the account.

Thoughts?

3 Likes
10

I really like this idea. This will make everyone work together instead of making it a contest. I just checked the website for the first time, I like it, something like it will definitely work for us.
Building and maintaining such a website might be pricy though!

2 Likes
11

I’m letting it stew in my brain, but so far it’s withstanding my inner interrogation.

@SirAlokin & @KamiSawZe

What say you coauthors? :grinning:

1 Like
12

I like the idea of tasks; however, I still have doubts about how to prevent people from buying likes for Twitter and YouTube.

Regarding the division by category, I completely agree with that.

As for the dApp platform to use, isn’t Sandbox capable of creating and hosting it on its own servers/website?

To further prevent money leaks in favor of bots, I would limit the rewards to wallets that are KYC or KYB verified.

3 Likes
13

Is there a way to stop them at all? I don’t know of a solution for that currently.

Yeah, Sandbox is probably capable of that. I think we’d hire a developer to build it, then send it to TSB for integration into their website.

To further prevent money leaks in favor of bots, I would limit the rewards to wallets that are KYC or KYB verified.

Oooooo, that’s a really good idea. I didn’t even think of that. Thanks Alokin.

1 Like
14

I just wanna make sure those in this chat are also aware of this somewhat related discussion that hasn’t had much action lately: Tipping Protocol for Increased Community Engagement :+1:t4:

15

@Geraldine Does the SAND Chest reach the threshold for SIP submission?

1 Like
16

Thanks for the ping, Lanzer! Give us a few days to get back to desks after the weekend and we’ll circle back to this thread then.

1 Like
17

Sounds good! :grinning: I listen to Geraldine’s explanation on the SIP training and it inspired me to ask

1 Like
18

Sorry I’ve been slow to get to this, but yes I’m happy to be named a co-author. I’ll need to some time to read through the comments as I often find the reply structure in this forum confusing to read, but first off thoughts for the original post.

Absolutely in agreement that it needs to be auditable so the DAO can vote on future adjustments based on how things are going and call out any potential misuse.

As platforms come and go (R.I.P. and welcome back Tiktok, we never even knew you left) I don’t think the list should be specific platforms, but types of platforms or rather content: streaming, short form video, long form video, and stream-VOD. Sites like youtube and facebook support all these content types. So I think rewards should maybe be based on the type of content over platform. For instance VODs don’t take a lot of effort, it’s just a stream replay. But if it’s getting a lot of traction, maybe that should be rewarded? It incentivizes streamers to make good content and leave it online - but the reward would be at a much lower rate than the original stream.

My opinion on the official channel/people:

  • Staff do not qualify (Panda, me, Veepyre, etc.)
  • Ambassadors already compensated do not qualify (Lukus, maybe others? @Pandapops should be able to let me know if there are others in that group).
  • Anything hosted on the official channel does not qualify. So we may have a guest on the show (like when Lukus and I had NotJackieChan on the show for several streams to play his game). Because that was on the official channel, it wouldn’t count, but if NotJackieChan wanted to post other videos of the same game (original content, not copies of our previous streams) then that would qualify for a reward.
  • Former staff/ambassadors who no longer are compensated could qualify (like AndyRichy) once the last period they were compensated in has completed. If TSB paid for a stream in December, no December reward, but you could be eligible in January.
  • Maybe a bit more controversial: people currently banned or failing KYC can’t participate. We don’t want to incentivize suspected bad actors.

It’s easy enough for us on staff to inform the DAO who isn’t eligible for compensation.

I’m eager to read through the comments and see what thoughts people have on tracking. I’m not sure the best way to measure and ensure people are not buying views. I suppose if the rewards are low enough, it wouldn’t be worth buying views - plus you run the risk of account deleting from that platform, and being banned from participating in this reward system.

The rewards should maybe have an inverse balance where the more views you have, the less each view counts. So maybe 10-50 views counts for 1 SAND per view. 50-150 count for .5 SAND. ETC… I haven’t thought through all the math, but the first handful of views shouldn’t count as that could be simply you reviewing your own upload, plus some people from the DAO checking it’s a valid entry. This way small creators with a few dozen views still get a tangible reward, and people getting thousands of views also still get a reward, but don’t deplete the whole chest.

Unlike my last paragraph, the rewards shouldn’t directly corelate to a specific SAND amount. It should be like a “SAND portion”. So in all of January creators totaled 9723 SAND portions - then the whole January allotment of the chest is divided by 9723 and split among the eligible creators based on their portions.

2 Likes
19

I see we’re on the same wavelength here.

2 Likes
20

Possible metrics vary from platform to platform. For twitch/youtube I’d go with “watchtime”. Better than views, it’s a measure of how much time people spent viewing. Problem being that I’m not sure how effectively and reliably we can get that info from every platform. But it is much easier to bot likes and views than watchtime.

2 Likes