2 Likes
TSB are the ones we made the purchases from, and ultimately the ones whoās reputation is most damaged by this. It should be on TSB to put it right.
TheSandbox refuses to take responsibility even though I bought the NFTs from them. They keep trying to shift blame to the DAO. But Iāve never done business with the DAO. Never bought a thing from them.
If I sue anyone, it will be TSB.
Could start by handing out the rest of the contents of this wallet to the defrauded users: https://opensea.io/0xD342BAa7BF694259B4e39441D9B612Bd1Ae17aaa
Iād like to take this opportunity to give you some feedback on these various comments.
We convinced the French Red Cross to launch a project in The Sandbox to find a new way of raising funds to finance real-life projects, with the aim of mobilizing the generosity of players and crypto fans. This project began two years ago, when crypto was doing well and NFTs were selling easily, especially when there was a ācharityā purpose.
We created experiences that presented the Red Crossā professions to raise awareness and inspire players to become volunteers, and we also created two Lands intervention experiences (flood zone and night marauding). Our aim was to raise as much money as possible.
We therefore set up a collection of NFTs for sale, but unfortunately the market collapsed, so we had to appeal to the DAO to obtain financial support of 200,000 SAND, which we allocated 100% to rewards in order to motivate buyers who might say to themselves āIām buying an NFT to support the Red Cross, itās costing me 80 SAND, but thanks to the reward, Iām going to get 40, 60 or 80 SAND backā¦ā. So we were hoping to be Sold out on all the NFTs because they combined a charitable project with a financial reward.
But, the sales werenāt up to scratch. My aim being to bring in as much money as possible for the association, I realized that if I bought NFTs, thanks to the rewards, I wouldnāt lose any money. I did it for the association, so that those who had already bought would lose almost nothing, or even make a profit by accumulating bonuses 3 and 4, and above all in full transparency, as required by Web3.
Thereās no scam, no insider dealing, just a project for an association in a very tense and difficult market. The Sandbox has shown altruism by supporting this project via the DAO, the Red Cross has shown innovation by presenting its project in the metaverse, and this has always been a charitable project, not a financial investment for its participants.
3 Likes
Blocked again. This time I simply pointed out that TSB changes their T&Cs then claims they were that way all along to avoid legal action, but quick checks on archive.org show these claims are false. They donāt like that.
I was also blocked for 24 hours because I wrote that this event is a scam.
Sorry to hear about your time outs @KINDJAL and @lilyrose
The DAO admin team does not influence that server in any way.
I assure you the only way youād get a timeout on these forums is after a clear warning for violating some obvious rule like not making personal attacks or going far off topic for a thread.
The concerns about this Red Cross event that have been aired by people on Discord are valid. Iām thankful to see @Johan addressing people here.
Dear all,
We have been proactively investigating to bring as much clarity as possible to the situation. Here are our findings:
- Before the launch of the DAO (05/29/24), Yobike Studios had partnered with Red Cross to develop 3 experiences to raise funds
- Yobike was not paid by The Sandbox (TSB) to do so
- The game development cost was estimated to be around 200k EUR
- Yobike made a deal with the Red Cross, to
- develop the experiences and create a collection of 5 NFT
- The sale price was fixed at 80 SAND for each copy
- He develop prize pools to boost sales and distribute rewards to the community
- Eventually split the revenue 70/30, in favor of the Red Cross
- Neither TSB nor The DAO was part of the discussion between Yobike and the Red Cross
- After the launch of the DAO, TSB recommended that Yobike make a SIP to finance the prize pools
- Each 3 out of the 5 NFT sales corresponded to an event in the Sandbox with an end date each time. The last one ended on the 3rd of February
- Prize pools were determined by NFT ownership at the end of the last event, when the fifth NFT sale ended
- Rewards will be distributed to the community at the beginning of March, once sales data and identification of NFT holders have been determined
- The final donation amount for the Red Cross will be communicated in March
In retrospect, this is what the admin team could have done better:
- Better alignment with the TSB Liveops team in charge of the event page to avoid confusion on the prize pool rules.
- Having the reward distribution managed by the admin Team directly. In this case, it was not possible as the contract between Red Cross and Yobike (Metavest) was already signed. In the future, the DAO should be the party distributing the prize pools, to have a holistic view of all parties involved. This would have meant better transparency for all.
As Johan mentioned in his message above, he also bought 162x4 NFT for himself. This is not something that was explicitly allowed or forbidden in the SIP. As a result, the impact for all other buyers is as follows:
- This resulted in reducing the prize pool earning per share from 20 to 27 SAND for the first 3 prize pools
- We cannot measure the impact for prize pools 4 and 5, as we donāt have the exact number of wallets holding 3 and 4 NFTs at the time the event ended. Only Johan has this data.
- By buying 162x4 NFT, Yohan also increased the donation to the Red Cross by 11kā¬
Note: The numbers are preliminary estimated calculations.
Refined data will be provided by Johan ASAP.
Regarding the call by some in the community for the DAO Admin Team to take action against Yobike, very little can be done now. There are no grounds for a ban on participation since Yobike did not violate any of the rules outlined in the SIP. During the advancement of future SIPs with prize pool components, the Admin Team, and surely the community, will scrutinize those sections of the rules to ensure there is no opportunity for behavior that might be deemed questionable by any participants.
HERE is a link to the original SIP.
1 Like
The original end date was set at 17 Jan 2025. All the shady stuff happened after that when the deadline was suddenly extended.
All the transactions happened on TSB web site. If TSB does nothing to rectify the situation then it is TSBās reputation that takes yet another hit. Most buyers probably didnāt pay any attention to the DAO or a SIP, they see that they went to sandbox.game and thatās who they will associate this with. Obviously TSB could make this right, but they wonāt. They have literally never made anything right when theyāve screwed up. TSB seemingly have a standing policy to never admit fault and never try to create any goodwill by doing right by their users.
There is no reason this should take over a month to pay out. Literally no reason. Snapshot should be taken the day it ends. Run the script the next day. 3 March 2025, still no distribution.
Also, itās time to scrap the DAO Discord. Most peopleās messages on there are being deleted. If you mention that your messages are being deleted, they delete that message and then you usually get banned. Itās not practical as it only supports the narrative that TSB want to put forward. No valid or rational criticism is allowed there.
When should participants expect payouts, @Johan?
Thanks for responding to the community here.
The DAO Admin team has no control over TSB server.
It is an important channel for us being able to meet the broader TSB community where they already are, so it will not be eliminated.
āMost peopleās messagesā are not being deleted, you know that, Red Lily.
Sorry (again) that you had an incident with your posts being deleted, but its important we keep this thread focused on rectifying the Red Cross situation to the best end that is possible.
Thank you for returning here to the forum to comment where Johan and others with more DAO focus will see your comments. I acknowledge the justified frustation of you and others and want to use this forum (and the DAO as a vehicle) to help improve the ecosystem for everyone.
Youāve made some points about āTSB responsiveness.ā Iām just thinking out loud here, but you could create a SIP that sets certain response time limits for all community inquiries. Stay based. Be grounded. Think about what might actually pass, and be implemented effectively, and work to improve things for everyone. Youāve got a lot of TSB passion that could be very powerful in enacting change if channelled well.
TSB should just run the payouts from its wallet (minus the insider dealing). We all bought from sandbox.game, so ultimately TSB is responsible, legally. If I buy something from Amazon.com and itās not right, Amazon refund me ā I donāt have to chase the manufacturer.
The structure of the SIP addresses that.
I look forward to an email to help this user get on the forum if theyāre having trouble, but the SIP should be readable even without making an account to reply.
The SAND came from the DAO.
Rewards will be disbursed tomorrow, as I understand
@Johan is responsible for this
1 Like
Weāve finalized and validated the file, and weāll sending Sand to Wallets on Tomorrow.
Hereās some information from the file:
There were 1,027 Wallets concerned in this event, including those who only took part in the first NFT (Kit Aid) or only bought the second NFT (the Mug) and wonāt be receiving anything this time for those NFT.
There are 400 Wallets that took part in the operation strictly linked to the SIP and made a profit or loss. On average, each wallet earned 81.6 SAND.
245 Wallets made a profit, with an average gain of 153 SAND (Rewards - NFT purchases)
155 Wallets made an average loss of 31 SAND
Wallets that purchased NFTs in equal amounts in each category systematically earned SAND. For example, buying 1 NFT Quad + 1 NFT Car + 1 NFT Boat, generates a gain of 24 SAND, and if we add the Mug, the gain rises to 26 Sand.
The biggest gain was generated by a wallet that owned 83 Kit Aid and bought 83 Quad + 83 Car + 83 Boat, gaining 10,572 Sand linked to this SIP (it bought 19,920 Sand worth of NFT and will receive 30,492 in rewards). His gain even rises to 14,307 if we add what he earned on the first NFT (Kit Aid) reward a little over a year ago.
Our purchase of 162 NFT in the 4 NFT categories generated a gain of 7,759 Sand. During the sale of the first NFT (Kit Aid), we didnāt buy any NFT because it was sold out and we let the community make gains. This time, we bought these NFTs because there werenāt enough sold and it wouldnāt cost anything to do so and would bring more money for the Red Cross. I would have preferred the community to do it.
The biggest loss was for someone who bought 1 Kit Aid + 1 Quad + 1 Car + 76 Boat, with a loss of 1,285 Sand. The second biggest loss is only 123 Sand (1 Kit Aid + 5 Mug + 2 Quad + 2 Car + 2 Boat), the next 14 losses are people who only bought a Mug and nothing else (even though itās an NFT without reward), so a loss of 80 Sand.
In other words, the majority of participants won Sand, while those who understood the logic of buying NFTs in different categories systematically made gains.
2 Likes
And what logic of buying NFT are you talking about?
You made a disgusting event with hidden conditions and did not leave a link to the forum where the conditions of this event were written and why 76 boats and not 100 if I sold 24 boats after the event on the Sandbox website ended?
1 Like