I’m so torn. On the one hand, I love the idea of requiring higher % of Yes vote for large SIPs. On the other, it has caused such tension in ApeCoin I really struggle with how it’ll change our young DAO in just trying to pass SIPs…especially with the smaller SIP authors and creator studios.
If we had a lower percentage that made SIP authors jump just a little bit higher, like 55% or 60%…I think that would send a message that we care more about large SIPs obtaining more community approval.
Maybe we make the threshold 100K SAND? That’s a psychological number to me that seems like it crosses into being big.
Something to consider is that we wanted to change quorum earlier but were told it was more difficult because its constitutional. Given we can barely make quorum as is I’d rather reduce for small budgets than increase for large. But don’t particularly think the effort required to play with quorum will be worth it.
60% sounds like a sweet spot of not overextending the requirements.
My opinion is to actually use FIAT as a benchmark instead of SAND because of SAND’s wild fluctuations as seen in Nov-Dec. In this timeframe, 100k sand has been worth 25k, to 100k, to 60k USD.
If we look at it from a different lens, 100k USD could have been worth 400k sand, 100k sand or 160k sand in the same time frame, all of which are huge amounts paid from the treasury.
I think you got the wrong idea haha. What I meant was to adjust the acceptance rate for SIPs requiring a large sum of money to not just a simple majority Yes(more yes than no even if the diff is .1%) but rather one that requires a supermajority, in this case, between the number of Yes and No votes, the Yes has to be 60% of it in order to pass.
@KCL the existing budget is supposed to last us through to end 2025, according to SIP 3. So good planning now will secure us for 2025 as well.
I’ve constructed a checkbook that I brief at the beginning of each of my podcast episodes (DAO Checkbook). It’s based on SIP having been passed. I haven’t done an actual inspection of each of the wallets yet, that would take A LOT of time.
That’s a good point, Intern. I go back and forth on this a lot. On the one hand, SAND does change a lot. On the other, USD is American-centric, and a number of SIPs have been in Euro. I’m unsure of how monetary policy really plays out on the international stage, but it seems to me that it involves more than exchange rates.
The on constant is SAND…but I don’t know how to reconcile that yes, SAND really is volatile.
I like the idea of having a higher acceptance threshold for larger SIPs!
Also, I agree with you, we should consider using FIAT as a benchmark for all projects getting funded by the DAO. And I think we should have a better ROI system in place for those as well.
Yes it is. Sorry I dont get what you mean when you said reduce for smaller budget in this context.
@Lanzer Considering most crypto pairs for fiat are based in USD I’d think that ppl will have no issues with conversion rates. It’s similar to how most people saw BTC 100k in USD term as a benchmark too across the globe.
Yes I suppose you’re right in that. I think what I’m saying is perhaps we shouldn’t do it that was. I’m American, so it’s not in my best interest to say this, but…Sandbox DAO’s valuation should not revolve around USD, it should revolve around $SAND.
Each person converts $SAND to their native currency. They way, we emphasize our international roots.
