Tomorrow is our 1-year birthday. I’ll be highlighting some of our notable successes in a video for release by Monday, latest.
However, this post isn’t about celebration. It’s about improvement.
We need more high-quality proposals/ideas turning into SIPs and getting the votes they need to pass.
We are essentially a SIP factory So, if there aren’t enough SIPs coming off the assembly line to be implemented into the ecosystem, we’re not being effective with our collective efforts.
There are multiple points in the process that we can all influence this:
Encourage more SandFam to submit ideas.
On the forum, help ideas take the shape of a SIP that will make it through vote.
Beware of the “false dilemma” fallacy – We mustn’t forget that spending on Proposal A does not necessarily mean sacrificing Proposal B. Multiple SIP categories exist and funds are not mutually exclusive. Do not think of SIPs as an “either/or” choice when they’re actually a “both/and” possibility. – So, this is not to say that anyone should vote “yes” just to push a SIP through. However, it’d improve the DAO’s chance to be seen as a successful experiment if more SIPs were to pass.
I am still personally debating resigning as ambassador to work on more SIPs, I was holding off because I wanted the tools to be more developed. Do you think it has reached a critical point with the Sandbox such that they are debating discontinuing the DAO unless it shows results?
I echo @cryptodiplo 's remarks. Sounds like TSB is weighing in here and could be related to the delayed funding bill that Cyril mentioned was due Jan or Feb.
In any case. We’re sitting at 19 of 28 SIPs passed, a pass rate of 67%. Is there an indication of what might help it be seen as a success? Say 80%?
@theKuntaMC I have definitely noticed an “all or nothing” attitude toward SIPs. As in, if someone felt that one part of the SIP was unacceptable, they voted against the whole thing. That, coupled with an unexpected “if I can’t do it you can’t either” like I experienced with my SANDDAO SIP, I can see why some might look at the DAO as something other than successful.
My Thoughts on helping turn this around
SC Recommendations should generally give out a positive unless there is something outrageously in opposition to TSB vision.
DAO Admin Team might consider generating more RFPs. UGC was a big success and it showcased what SIP recipient status felt like. I’d gladly volunteer to help since I do literal RFP building + evaluation in my professional life. I have a whole backlog of SIP ideas I can’t get to in a lifetime because of the burden on MetaWorlds team to get it to vote and carry it out. Just getting Sand Chest SIP to the voting line has been a multi-months long process. My other three took even longer.
SC Reelections pronto. The lack of visible elected DAO leadership has been a huge, HUGE mortal wound to the DAO. Momentum, energy, and general sense of purpose for the DAO has been negated from the start. A general rule of thumb in any organization…shortcoming at the lower levels indicates shortcoming at the leadership level.
Fun fact: In my SIP backlog I even have an out-of-cycle SC & AB election SIP that I have outlined, but all these other things have taken so long to get through the process, reelections are rapidly approaching and it no longer feels relevant.
There are avenues for delegates to “work on” SIPs without “authoring” them, such as a) developing an idea, then b) working with the author’s to refine it.
However, I think everyone would be very respectful of whatever decision you make, as I know the community remains grateful for all you’ve done to date!
TSB is absolutely not debating discontinuing the DAO.
The annual DAO donation requires a board ratification. But the board has been very busy with other current topics.
I think most people want to see a greater volume of high-quality SIP ideas and more of them being pushed through, no?
Our value lies in our collective ability to by field, refine, and execute the best possible proposals.
There is no risk to the DAO or pressure from outside parties (like TSB). However, there are expectations from individuals that we should be producing more.
The annual DAO donation requires a board ratification. But the board has been very busy with other current topics.
There is no risk to the DAO or pressure from outside parties (like TSB). However, there are expectations from individuals that we should be producing more.
Our value lies in our collective ability to by field, refine, and execute the best possible proposals.
Nobody has suggested a pass rate benchmark.
Good discussion to have, though.
However, I think it’s more about the volume than it is about the percent that pass.
In other words, even if we’re only passing 30% of SIPs it would be fine, as long as we’re consistently passing a diversity of different kinds of proposals.
Good point.
The sooner we all chime in on SIP ideas, the more influence we can have over their content. That way, the community can help ideas take shape of something they’d want to vote on.
As with any “bill” in any government, there will likely be some element we want to see improved. Sometimes the spirit of compromise has to be balanced with the safeguarding of budgets and personal priorities.
Responses to above:
I imagine each of the 5 SC members has different suggestions for each SIP, but that generally speaking, they probably abide by the suggestion you advance here. The council issue recommendations based on their business analysis of the SIP. If it is misaligned, with TSB Vision or interest, the reco has a better chance to be negative indeed. It’s the same way the community vote with their own conscience.
Already done… Looking forward to raising the bar… But that comes with higher volume and stronger refinement during discussion phases.
RFPs start with either a) a clear need, or b) an idea that doesn’t have a proposed driver/builder. We can always use RFP’s when either of those instances arise.
Regarding SC elections.. I imagine in the next few months we’ll start to see candidacies (and perhaps slates) announced. Exciting times…
However, I think it’s more about the volume than it is about the percent that pass.
Ah. Got it.
RFPs start with either a) a clear need, or b) an idea that doesn’t have a proposed driver/builder.
I think applying a strict measures like that misses some good opportunitiwa. There’s an element of discovery that RFPs have a natural ability to unearth. In my experience, just the idea itself is sufficient for exploring your a) and b). Just my opinion though.
next few months we’ll start to see candidacies (and perhaps slates) announced. Exciting times…
Indeed. I’ve already announced my intention to run.
It is an invitation to share, and it’s also difficult to obtain. Most don’t have the experience needed to campaign a polished proposal across the voting finish line.
What’s an example of an RFP along the lines of your thinking?
I think most of the already passed SIPs could have been RFP if one were motivated reverse engineer it. The phygital could have been an RFP that requested proposals for a Web3 merchant that can make merch and install scannable tokens in them.
simplifying the process in other ways over time is a constant goal.
But most of the SIPs that passed also had healthy debate as to their content and whether or not they should be a SIP at all.
Creating RFPs for everyday is a declaration that we’ve collectively decided it’s something we want already. Additionally, an RFP sets parameters for the project.
So, maybe I am still just not understanding you here, but I do want to! : )
I would still assert that, generally speaking, RFPs start with either a) a clear need, or b) an idea that doesn’t have a proposed driver/builder. We can always use RFP’s when either of those instances arise.
I don’t think we should compare the success of the DAO with the percentage of successful SIPs.
Incidentally, they encourage people to pass SIPs more than they encourage them to actually experience them.
Agreed. And in my opinion it’s definitely succeeding.
But most of the SIPs that passed also had healthy debate as to their content and whether or not they should be a SIP at all.
Fair, very fair.
RFPs start with either a) a clear need, or b) an idea that doesn’t have a proposed driver/builder.
Ohhhh. you said EITHER. My fault. I 100% agree a) or b)…and I think there are many letters after that, like
c) you want to promote competition among a clear need that has many known builders
d) you want to give the community options when considering how to fill one of it’s ecosystem needs
e) you have a specific budget you must meet for a specific need
and others I can’t think off the top of my head right now
I think this comparison is made already. To me it feels like a natural thing to track. If you have 100 proposals and 99 of them were rejected…that 1 accepted proposal better be so incredibly extraordinary or the high rejection rate better fit within the culture of the DAO.
If either or those things aren’t true…then I’d think the DAO has a major shortcoming.
Indeed, it’s a measure of success in an established organization. It seems to me that we’re a little young to be able to use these figures as a reference.
We shouldn’t ignore them, it’s true; they’re part of the data to monitor, but in my opinion, for a one-year DAO, it’s absolutely not relevant to stop there.
I’ll be highlighting some of our notable successes in a video for release by Monday, latest.
So, if there aren’t enough SIPs coming off the assembly line to be implemented into the ecosystem, we’re not being effective with our collective efforts.
SIP: Ideas
SIP: Active > 
In Discussion
