I’ve now created the short community survey to collect your insights on what a truly useful Sandbox Multi-Asset Portfolio & Creator Tracker should include.
You can fill it in here :
Your feedback will help shape the features, pain points and data layers we prioritize.
I’ll also be sharing an update soon on another important piece of this research:
A quick benchmark from other ecosystems
I’m currently gathering examples of successful, user-centric dashboards from other Web3 ecosystems. This will help show how similar tools have gained traction elsewhere and make a stronger case that the Sandbox community is asking for and ready for something similar.
Thanks again for the input and the engagement so far. I’ll keep everyone posted with the summary of survey results + benchmark findings soon!
And could you atleast help me share the survey form above ,I would really appreciate your help.
Merry Christmas everyone!Wishing you a joyful and restful Christmas. Thank you for the time and effort you’ve put into supporting the community and reviewing submissions.
Even though I didn’t share feedback earlier, I’ll still be sending in my inputs and research. I really appreciate the opportunity to contribute and stay involved.
Thanks again, and wishing you all a great holiday and a happy new year!
Sorry, I have nothing against TheOmari’s proposal itself, but we’ve already seen the outcome of this kind of proposal, and I think we should stop the spending at this level.
The delivered products are far from matching the price paid and the promises that were made. I’m clearly thinking of the so-called “UGC platform”, which is nothing more than a search field connected to an API (and is there even a single person actually using it?). It’s so empty and pointless that no one uses it.
Personally, I’m uncomfortable with the fact that this is being tolerated, and at this point, I see any proposal or funding request for “tools” like this as attempts to siphon funds from the DAO.
Nothing works, and it brings no value to the DAO, nothing to users, and nothing to TSB.
And if this is about funding yet another tool—one that isn’t even guaranteed to work, especially since tracked data is still not being shared by TSB (unless that has changed and I missed it)—for something we are perfectly capable of building ourselves, and potentially doing better on our side, then honestly: thanks, but no thanks.
@sebga I understand the frustration, and I agree with the core issue you’re raising: the DAO should not continue funding tools that underdeliver, see no adoption or provide superficial value. Past examples have clearly damaged trust.
That’s exactly why this proposal is structured differently.
This is not a thin UI or a single API wrapper. The problem being addressed is the lack of user-level portfolio visibility across SAND, LAND, NFTs, and creator activity something existing ecosystem dashboards do not solve. The value lies in aggregation, historical tracking and portfolio analytics, not discovery or search.
Key differences from past efforts:
1.Milestone-based, reviewable delivery (research → prototype → build → audit)
2.Open-source by default, so the DAO or TSB can reuse, fork, or replace it at any time
3.Explicit validation of data availability upfront - if the data isn’t viable, development does not proceed
4.Clear accountability via public deliverables and documentation
You’re also right that this is something TSB could build internally and if they choose to do so later, this work doesn’t block that. The goal here is to fill a demonstrated gap now, transparently and without creating long-term dependency.
Healthy skepticism is warranted. If the DAO believes stronger success criteria are needed to justify funding, were open to defining those publicly and being held to them
There are several points I’d like to highlight in general.
1. TSB doesn’t seem willing to be more open, mainly out of fear of “knowledge theft.” I remember one of the first things I read was “no reverse engineering.” I don’t find that abnormal in itself, but it reflects a more closed vision rather than an open one.
2. Animoca appears to like having control over everything (at least that’s the impression it gives). I see many tools being released and put in place — maybe related to the Sandchain, I don’t know. For example, Corner is new and feels a bit like a Farcaster-style tool, but focused on the SAND (and The Sandbox).
Maybe there’s a broader strategy behind rolling out all these tools, and maybe any initiative to build independent tools is more or less doomed to fail because they already have their own plan.
Honestly, I don’t really know — but I really appreciate your response. Thank you.
Thanks for sharing these thoughts ,I really appreciate the context. I agree that there are tensions in the ecosystem around openness versus control. TSB and Animoca clearly favor a controlled approach whether through internal tooling, reverse engineering restrictions, or new tools like Corner. That can make independent initiatives feel like they’re up against an uphill battle.
Even if TSB has its own roadmap, community-built tools can still provide proof-of-concept, experimentation and tangible user value. This tracker could complement official offerings, offer insights creators and investors currently lack and provide data in a format that’s otherwise unavailable.
https://forms.gle/FJcEmJMYQ2aazshk8
A quick benchmark from other ecosystems
Merry Christmas everyone!Wishing you a joyful and restful Christmas. Thank you for the time and effort you’ve put into supporting the community and reviewing submissions.