Initiating Land purchase from open market

💡 SIP: Ideas Old Ideas
1

Pending the approval of The Sandbox DAO budget, this proposal is to discuss the details of LAND purchase using the budget allocated to it under ‘LiveOps’

What
Under ’ SIP-3 [Resubmitted]: Initial Budget for the DAO’, a section named ‘LiveOps’ includes the following details:

- 3,000,000 SAND
- This will be used for campaigns to buy back LAND to ensure productive use in The Sandbox ecosystem, LAND rewards, LiveOps rewards and rewards for Avatar holders, among other related items.
- The administrator and The Sandbox will have authority to spend these amounts at their discretion.

I’d like to launch a SIP which specifically allocates 900k SAND to LAND purchase.

The breakdown is as follows:

Amount spent:
Max cap of 50k SAND/month for the next 18 months starting from July 2024

Purchasing any LAND that is listed on Opensea/Magic Eden that is valued at 1k SAND or less in both SAND/ETH terms.

Why
The general NFT market is currently still in a bearish mood and this presents a unique opportunity for us as a DAO to purchase LAND at ‘below raffle’ prices. We should grasp this opportunity whilst it lasts to build up our LAND bank, which can then be used for rewards or other purposes.

Why 1k SAND?
Raffles are priced at 1011 SAND, purchasing back at slightly under said price ensures that the DAO does not become ‘Exit Liquidity’ for future raffles.

Why 50k SAND/month?
This is to ensure prudent and ‘timed’ use of funds instead of spending the whole budget in the short period, creating excess demand and ‘manipulating’ prices.

It is also to ensure that during months of LAND raffle, we do not end up soaking up ALL the raffled LANDs that participants may not want.

3 Likes
2

PS @Geraldine is it possible to move this to the SIP proposal section, thanks and sorry for the inconvenience

3

If you try to post it in there you have to wait for approval. But you are allowed to submit it.

I submitted one already about removing all the SIPs until the community has a chance to have a discussion regarding them. Not sure why they haven’t approved that for being added to that section yet :thinking:

4

I’m assuming that since all 5 SIPs are in motion, to submit an SIP to remove all the existing ones will not make sense chronologically.

5

I am personally against the purchasing land by sandbox. A better approach would be leasing the land, then Sandbox on behalf of the game developer (who doesn’t have land), rents it for a period of, for example, 6 months. If the game is successful, this can be extended for additional months. Another issue is fixing gem farming; it currently doesn’t work at all.

6

You do realise that TSB owns alot of lands, right? :joy:

They’d probably lend their own lands to devs instead of helping people lease their lands and be a middleman IMO.

7

Neither would approving SIPs 4-5 which deal with how we use the budget BEFORE we actually create a budget in SIPs 1-3, but that is what we are doing :woman_shrugging:

2 Likes
8

…why should we buy LANDs with the DAO ?

We need people on the market buying LAND and Tokens not our DAO

The DAO needs no incentives s rewards in form of LANDS

9

@James This is literally what The Sandbox already does. This is also literally what is in the budget you seem to so strongly support. This just outlines a specific process and how the DAO can be involved in the process.

So, again, do you just know absolutely nothing about The Sandbox? Or is it that you aren’t reading anything and specifically came here to troll?

Because if it’s that you aren’t reading anything and know absolutely nothing about The Sandbox, you’ve got a great chance at being appointed to the Special Council!

1 Like
10

Hey @James, currently there’s already a component under “LiveOps” in SIP 3 which is the initial budget of the DAO allocated to said purchases.

This is the quote:

  • 3,000,000 SAND
  • This will be used for campaigns to buy back LAND to ensure productive use in The Sandbox ecosystem, LAND rewards, LiveOps rewards and rewards for Avatar holders, among other related items.
  • The administrator and The Sandbox will have authority to spend these amounts at their discretion.

What this proposal aims to do is to set the parameters for the funds already allocated to purchase LANDS.

I believe there are plans to give said LANDs away for events such as Game Jams.

11

Forewarning, @James is doing this on every post he can. He doesn’t read it at all and then responds to get an interaction from people. Even if it means completely contradicting his own self within minutes of what he last said on a different post. In one post he fully supports everything about the DAO then in the next he comes in to argue against something The Sandbox DAO and The Sandbox already do.

2 Likes
13

Not sure why TSB should buy back lands… There are way enough lands on the map and if there is a decrease of land liquidity price will increase which at the end push holders to sell. If TSB buy back lands to offer them not sure what as the purpose to create a map with NFT lands.

14

Hey there KCL. Just so we are on the same page, this is the DAO buying land and not TSB. Both are separate entities as of yesterday, with the passing of SIP 1, 2 and 3.

With the successful passing of SIP 3 (Initial Budget for the DAO), a category that’s present inside it is ‘LiveOps’ which include the purchase of LANDs for rewards etc.

This SIP proposal is to form a draft that dictates how that section of the money is used.

15

I think the price of 1000 SAND is too high.
First because it will maintain artificially the price at around 1000 SAND. The amount allocated is creating unbalance competition against other small investors. You can even think that having such a big pool of lands can be used to manipulate at some point the price. I do not have necessarelly a good solution but I would actually rather prefer having shorter buy-back campaign of a maximum predefined amount of lands at a max price. This will actually increase transparency.

16

I am in favor of this. Some thoughts:

@KCL A floor price could actually incentivize people to buy if they have more confidence that the value won’t go to zero, and they can exit more easily if they are in a cash crunch.

Generally this proposal is just choosing a specific allocation of the 3M budget for liveops to be put towards land. I think 900k is fair, and the rest can be used towards customer acquisition. Realistically we need to steady the ship before going all in on player acq, it is clear that we need more upgrades to the tech before we will be able to retain players, and that means focusing on land owners and creators first.

1 Like
17

I am in favor of buying land but the conditions should be revised to take into consideration market environment. That is the reason why I am not in favor of fixing those conditions over this period of 18 months. As an example 150 k for the next 3 months with land price at max 1000 is reasonable. It will already create a poll of 150 lands to be used for rewards, live ops…

18

Just as a reference, there are currently less than 10 lands below 1000 sand or it’s equivalent in terms of ETH. In this conditions, it’s unlikely that we’ll have 150 lands by the end of 3 months.

Also, launching a land purchase every 3 months is ineffective and a hassle. My experience with previous DAOs tells me that voter fatigue, especially on proposals that are repetitive, typically leads to decreased participation rate over time, which then affects the expected outcome.

I’d say that launching a decisive proposal that spans over 18 months provides long term certainty. If need be, a separate proposal can be launched to modify requirements if market conditions change.

I agree with @cryptodiplo. Inspiring confidence in the floor price will give investors/builders the courage to purchase land instead of waiting for the dip to go “dipper”, which leads to a vicious cycle of more supply selling and more demand waiting.

19

Thanks DAO but current market is not reflecting what will be the future. It think the conditions requires a more thorough analysis that what you are suggesting. In a nutshell you suggest to block 900kSAND for 18 months while we are even not sure we can really use them effectively. If there are only 10 lands below that price what you refer too this would actually speak for having only 10 k SAND /month on that or 180kSAND for 18 months. This look to me a more reasonable approach as a starting point. This would adress your concern about having to have a proposal prepared every 3 months and adress my concern about the uncertainty and the level of investment proposed.

20

Hey @KCL, there’s actually a component within the SIP Draft that’s already submitted to the DAO Project Management Team that includes a clause where if any outstanding amount of the monthly 50k SAND is unspent, it’ll be transferred back into the ‘LiveOps’ budget by end of month.

That, I believe should address your issue.

I’ll be working closely with the Project Management team in drafting out the Proposal in more detail so do keep an eye out for it.

21

@DAO , thanks for that precision which give some clarity about the unused budget. Can we expect more details in the SIP itself when published for voting if it goes through? Like clause based on market evolution scenario?