Would you all support a SIP to form a Builder’s Challenge Working Group with an elected community committee that would form the rules & process for Builder’s Challenge 3?
I, like many others who participated in Builder’s Challenge 1, felt it could’ve gone better. There were a lot of lessons learned from that one (like more advance notice, allocation of rewards, cheating protections). I’ve been focusing on the DAO since then, but I’ve heard how Builder’s Challenge 2 has unfolded (shoutout to @Krafter), and it too seems like it too has issues that need addressing.
We could write up a SIP that would create a Builder’s Challenge Working Group, which would have the authority to determine how it would go. We then have the election and give the committee members some SAND as compensation and a few months to engage the community and come up with a comprehensive plan. Then TSB puts that into effect for Builder’s Challenge 3.
My understanding is that BC is sponsored by TSB and not the DAO so it seems that even if there’s a WG for it, the prerogative remains with TSB on how they decide to use those funds because they’ll have their own metrics for success.
Would be a good start though. But I’m thinking better to keep the group small(team of 3) and diverse(mix of studio, indie creator and player) since it’s payroll sponsored by the DAO and there’s no guarantee any advice will be placed in full effect. Team can expand if TSB decides to let the DAO have reins.
Thanks! I’m unsure about the advisory part. I think there’s room to word it as the main rule setting body. I’m unsure what expenses Builder’s Challenge has versus the revenue it earns from new users and Sandbox community participation resulting from new users. In that light, it seems more reasonable to me to have it be a rule setting body. Maybe we make it advisory for BC 3 just to see how it functions? Then we worry about making it more after we see the results.
Understood. I still have my doubts as to whether TSB will be agreeable to let this panel be a rule setting body even if the proposal passes and a team is set up, because, well back to the point of TSB being the sponsors of BC instead of the DAO and also them having possibly a different key metrics of success.
Its worth a shot, perhaps for 1 or 2 seasons of BC, but we should maintain budget prudency since we won’t know if any of the recommendations will be binding.
IMO I think that a better way forward for TSB would be to get feedback via polls on the main TSB forum instead of via the DAO.
Yeah, I think it’s at least worth a shot. I suspect there will be some very motivated nominees who will want the nomination for all the right reasons to help better the BC experience. The BCWG should help with the polls as well. Aggregate as much data as possible to help TSB make better decisions. It’ll help the TSB team take a load off their workload and augment their efforts.
I reached out to an ApeCoin DAO GWG member and CityDAO member to do podcast episodes on educating us on how a Working Group works and what their DAOs do different from ours.
