Seems reasonable enough to me Metaverso! Iām not sure if 30M is an optimal quorum for Sandbox DAO.
What are your thoughts what Chat GPT wrote?
Hi @Lanzer thanks for submitting this idea! Itās great to see it sparking diverse opinions. Iāll move this topic to the general discussion, as any change would require a constitutional SIP, which needs to be drafted by the DAO itself.
No submission is needed on your end.
@Geraldine, I canāt find anywhere in the Constitution that a SIP amending the Constitutiton can only be drafted by the DAO. It says on page 4 that it needs to receive a two-thirds majority. Where does it say the DAO must draft it?
Hey all,
I have done some maths and here is an idea looking for your feedback. The proposal is designed to
-
take into consideration the potential future evolution of the DAO community (using half of the average of all SIPs voting power) as minimum Quorum for 0 $ SIPs
-
introduce a component of budget requested by the SIP of 40 VP per $ requested
Here I need to explain why I selected 40 VP/$. I have selected this value based on current 0.25$/SAND or 10 VP/SAND. With that value my formula will give a needed quorum of 49 Millions VP for a requested budget of 3.6 Millions SAND at 0.25$ (3.6 Millions is the max amount requested as part of current budget of DAO for Sand initiative). This value of quroum of 49 Milliions is avoiding as well that TSB vote alone such a budget and with the introdcution of delegation should be reachable (first 3 SIPs reached 40 millions without TSB) -
The fixed 40 VP/$ will avoid variation of VP based on price of SAND token. (can be revised but is there to make more a more difficult very high budget request)
Long story short here is a table to illustrate
The things that I am not sure and happy to hear your thoughts are:
- Are you fine to fix a VP/$ requested
- What do you think about the 40VP/$ and its influence on the VP required for amount of $ requested (15.5 M SAND or 3.875 Millions $ is the budget of 2024 DAO) would have required 168 Millions VP to be passsed in 1 go.
- What do you think about the minimum being the averga of all past SIPs. (not sure simple average is the best on mong term but at the moment it might be the best) Later we might want to put a moving average
PS: It is clear in my head but I aknolwegde this post might be difficult to read so do not hesitate to ask clarifications.
@Lanzer @DrMetaverso @EscapeRoomArtist @DAO @UncleGrumpy and @KCL
I donāt have a fully formed opinion on the matter, but I would like to bring relevant information.
Initially, in my assessment, for SIPs focused on UGC Creators, the quorum should be lowered.
One of the reasons is the following. 
We currently have a total of 290 unique Creators active through Builders Challenge 2, where āCreatorsā should be understood as the account that published the Experience.
Out of these 290 Creators, we have a total of 3200 LANDs.
99 have 1 LAND
40 have 2 LANDs
41 have between 3-5 LANDs
42 have between 6-10 LANDs
25 have between 11-20 LANDs
7 have between 21-50 LANDs
4 have between 51-100 LANDs
8 have more than 100 LANDs, with a total of 1528 LANDs.
This is relevant because, despite the quorum being 1%, itās still significant when we consider the amount of VP that the organic UGC community possesses.
Upon thorough evaluation, I recommend that, for SIPs specifically targeting UGC Creators, the quorum requirement be reconsidered and potentially lowered to better align with the unique dynamics and engagement levels of this community.
3 Likes
Nice @dankoyy ! How did you put these numbers together? Iāve been hunting for those numbers to respond to EacapeRoom and KCL. Thank you!
1 Like
Manual efforts, organized creator-to-creator, have been summarized in a spreadsheet for streamlined analysis.
Fantastic work @dankoyy!
I believe what that shows in a glimpse is that, while in absolute numbers, it seems that a 30m VP quorum is miniscule compared to the total amount of circulating land and sand, we cannot be blind to the fact that much of that sand/land is held inside treasuries, CEXs, dormant wallets, smart contracts etc and may not activate to vote in SIPs.
Taking that fact into account, and then seeing the recent amount of participating VP, it should be clear that quorum is set too high at the moment. We also have to recognise that since the DAO is new and participation is low(SAND/LAND is nowhere in a long term bull market rally and therefore may have fallen out of purview of many who have invested and forgotten), we should lower the bar for quorum for now.
In fact, Iām of the belief that lowering quorum may generate more participation since people who may not agree with certain SIPs will be encouraged to vote āNoā instead of not voting altogether to prevent the SIP from hitting quorum and failing.
The last thing we want as a DAO is to encourage ānot participatingā as a form of protest to certain policies potentially enacted by SIPs.
2 Likes
@DAO . That makes sense to me! Iād love to see more voter participation.
@Lanzer Same my friend. I do hope that delegation and a potential decrease in quorum will bring some enthusiasm back into voting.
Yeah, right now there isnāt much view enthusiasm. To EacapeArtistsā point, how do we separate non enthusiastic voters from voters refusing to participate because they donāt like the SIP?
I feel like thereās a mathematical way to approach this, but I donāt know what variables to seek out.
I have the impression that my proposal above allow to solve many of the issues:
- It lower the minimum quorum which we all agree at the moment with the limited engagement is too high.
- With the about 13 milliions I proposed only 1 SIP (nĀ°11 would not have passed). I have the same opinion that @DAO that lowering this bar will āforceā people that disagree to vote; ATM it is too easy to be a silent disapprover (eg maybe most of investor do not care about supporting topics from creators but they certainly do not want SIPs from creators sucking all the budget so they will react against if bar is lowered)
- It has a mechanism of self adjustment when the voting will start to increase.
- It has a minimum quorum but at the same time includes a component variable based on amount requested.
Yāall enjoy! I am not for lowering the minuscule <1% quorumā¦ and because I am not in the business of trying to convince/persuade/educate people, just know this is the last I am going to speak on this. Good day, good night & good luck!
I think you should keep saying something @EscapeRoomArtist ! I think it helps temper/modulate any tendencies to overdo the change to where it becomes excessive.
I appreciate that you are speaking upā¦
I would say that the statements below by Dr. Metaverso are very relevant, and at the moment I donāt have a number or a clear idea on the subject. I believe that since it is also constitutionally matter, both the Council and the Advisors can also assess whether the situation and analysis of the changing the quorum are pertinent or not.
Unless we decide to pull multiple sample size groups of individuals from different factions within TSB and interview them on I donāt believe thereās a way to.
To @KCLās question, I believe a 10 VP/SAND model is a viable structure as opposed to a 40 VP/$ model since the treasury is valued 100% in SAND. This takes the risk of SAND price fluctuation out of the equation and the need for constant update resulting from that. However, Iād still stick to the 15m VP baseline quorum(0.5% of total circulating SAND). I will also not set a ceiling to which the amount of VP is needed.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
An example for a 100k USD proposal:
At $0.25 SAND value, the author will need to gather 4m VP[($100k USD/$0.25 per SAND) x 10VP/SAND] on top of the base of 15m. That equates to a 19m VP quorum.
At $1 SAND value, the author will need to gather 1m VP[($100k USD/$1 per SAND) x 10VP/SAND] on top of the base of 15m. That equates to a total of 16m VP.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
An example for a 500k USD proposal:
At $0.25 SAND value, the author will need to gather 20m VP[($500k USD/$0.25 per SAND) x 10VP/SAND] on top of the base of 15m. That equates to a 35m VP quorum.
At $1 SAND value, the author will need to gather 5m VP[($500k USD/$1 per SAND) x 10VP/SAND] on top of the base of 15m. That equates to a total of 20m VP.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
While it does seem like quorum is on the low end if SAND is valued at $1, we must also remember that the amount of SAND disbursed is also consequently lesser for the same USD amount, hence the impact on treasury is lesser and therefore lesser quorum should be needed.
Likewise, a higher quorum is required when SAND is valued lower at $0.25 since the impact to the treasury is 4x greater.
My thoughts on the ChatGPT portion are similar in that we definitely need a quorum in the TSB DAO. This is especially important during this early stage of the DAO.
Even though I love the idea of a dynamic quorum, the current quorum level is achievable without TSBās vote, such as SIP-6.
Iām not here to judge the quality of the SIPs being submitted, especially since I havenāt created one myself yet. However, I appreciate how some ideas engage the whole community and gain traction, while others may receive less attention. To me, this is exactly what a DAO is supposed to do and is just part of the overall process.
Perhaps SIP owners will need to rally more support, like a political campaign to promote their SIPs.
One last thought, I think we donāt have enough data to justify lowering the quorum yet, as weāve only gone through fewer than 20 SIPs. Plus, itās already been proven that the current quorum is achievable without the TSBās Vote.
3 Likes
Thanks bro, this is actually very relevant. At first, I was leaning toward a dynamic quorum, like what I mentioned above, because of this data, but SIP-6 is telling me, āNo, think again!ā lol
While I agree with you that the community is small, they were still able to pass a UGC-related SIP. Thatās why I mentioned in the above comment that we need more Data!
2 Likes
The UGC Community is not small. Hereās just a clarification.
We know that a Creator in BC2 is often made up of several individuals. I only brought information about those who are actively publishing Experiences on their accounts during BC2.
Most Creators consist of a group of individuals (CEO/Leader, Game Design, GM Dev, Voxel Artists, Art Design, Community Manager, Investors/Publisher, etc), and each one usually also owns LANDs or SAND. Therefore, speaking in terms of individuals, there is an expectation, based on my knowledge of the teams, that each Creator in BC is made up of anywhere from 1 to 6 individuals or even more.
Itās also well-known that many creators did not participate in BC2 for various reasons. Therefore, a good portion of the VP are also not there.
It also happens very frequently that creators separate their valuable NFTs(Lands) and Tokens(Sand) into other wallets for security or transactional purposes.
So, just to clarify, 290 Creators actually represent a community with a significant number of people, but precise information on this could only be provided by TSB. So, the information I bring about the Creators active in BC2 is important for reference purposes.
Taking advantage of Dr. Metaversoās comment about Data, Iād like to bring up what I believe to be the 1Āŗ Priority for the UGC Creator community:
Workspace to be implemented so that we have access to Data in order to better understand the community.
The article below details the matter