Hey brianchilders, i’m Seb and I’m french but i’m not seb borget 
1 Like
i don’t know what has changed but i went from 36vp to 9000vp
It’s counting your unstaked LANDs as 4500 VP each now. It was always supposed to do that, which is why SIP1-3 have been resubmitted with LAND VP included. Before it was just the value of your unstaked SAND (I think only on Polygon too, but not sure).
So staked stuff still needs to be counted, and there may be other ways to get VP - potentially holding Assets and Avatars. But at the moment, your unstaked LAND is what’s counted in the snapshot with the most value.
3 Likes
Alex is right about the future, they did mention in the future ASSETs (and hopefully Avatars) would be considered for VP but are not currently active.
“Please note that while we are actively working to include additional factors like ASSET and Collection ownership and to refine the consideration for LAND (including traits like neighborhood and premium), these are not yet incorporated into the voting power calculation.”
And on a personal note, while I fully support adding those since those are SAND owners that invested their SAND in the tokenomics of the project, I will take this opportunity again to say that the VP of those who staked should have at the minimum been counted from the beginning. Personally I also feel, that it should have an added weight to it.
1 Like
And since I am here, I will say what I have said many places and many times. The community deserves a chance to discuss these SIPs before voting on them.
I understand that once they are in place, it will be in the Constitution to be able to discuss them, but there is absolutely no logical reason why we were not allowed to discuss these issues first.
Paying someone 110,000 SAND a year for a term that stretches into 2 years is worthy of at the least a discussion.
I fully understand based on their tweets that they already know they are on the board and council and that a discussion will not change anything. If it did, then they would be introducing themselves and asking for our support instead of just informing us that they have accepted the position before a vote even took place. Regardless, for appearances this is the least we can do for the community.
And at this point, I would also hope we would do more for the community. I researched their social media presence and found combined, everyone on the Council and Board have only communicated with the community in discord for a total of 14 posts since the beginning of 2023. 14 posts total out of 12 members who are supposed to represent the “community’s interests.” That is not acceptable and makes me wonder if this is why we were never allowed to discuss it in the first place. And their twitter presence in regards to TSB is not much better at all. Those are our two biggest areas for the community to be present and communicate.
The community deserves better.
3 Likes
I posted this on X/Twitter but realized this is probably a better avenue…
“I have had some time to reflect on the SandboxDao AMA & Krafter’s AMA… stepping back a second and taking my emotions and such out of it. Here is my thoughts and view on the DAO…
-
The DAO is going to pass, we have no real say so in it.
-
The DAO is already set in place (council and board).
-
The budget has be determined and set in place where money will be given out to those in SIP-4 & SIP-5.
-
Since there is nothing written in to generate wealth (aka. bring in money to fund the budget further), the DAO will ultimately crumble. Drain the SAND from the BUCKET(DAO) holding it. PUN INTENDED
-
With a council and board vocal about not having a hand in the software features and will probably not pass a proposal on such, this shows their focus is NOT on us the the community of builders and creators.
-
Last thought (for now), I have to ask myself one question… “Why are THEY wanting US to vote?” To me, it is to make the quorum high enough that it does not look bad when they put in their vote to pass this money well that is destined to run dry!!! I really hope I am wrong but I seriously DAO-bt I am. Let’s watch and see…“
3 Likes
Re: 2 & 6 - The Special Council and Advisory Board were already set in place before a vote even took place. That is why all their tweets are thanking The Sandbox DAO and accepting the position rather than asking for us to vote for them and introducing themselves (since most have had absolutely no interaction with the community who’s interests they are supposed to protect).
It would have made a lot more sense for them to thank the DAO for the nomination and ask for our votes, but we can see the tweets, that’s not what they did. Likely because they knew they were guaranteed the positions.
They are so out of touch with the Community’s Interests that they will require a discussion and SIP before even allowing a 1:1 VP for those who staked $SAND in the project, which was in the whitepaper (note: LAND holders VP was not).
Yet, we are paying them 110,000 SAND a year per person for two years and not even allowed to have a discussion first (which they could have chosen to ignore our feedback on and published the proposal as is afterwards).
1 Like
Been here since day1. Looking forward to the DAO system.
So Great to see that the DAO is born , a new Milestone is achieved, lets enable the Community:smiling_face_with_three_hearts:
1 Like
…where to find the Proposal Idea Template to use ?
1 Like
Ah, you answered my other questions already, you literally don’t read anything. At least now we know 
1 Like
Hi James, please find the template here.
And also enclosing the link to the DAO Website with useful information about the DAO.
I appreciate the utilization of a single service provider for administrative services in Arasakio.
Food for future thought, as their service period comes to a close in November and is reassessed, I would urge the DAO not to move toward full decentralization in administration as other DAOs have gone. There is simplicity and effectiveness in having an organization help the DAO operate. I believe this can be accomplished while still incorporating community and still living by a decentralized ethos.
1 Like
I am all for administrative assistance in a DAO, but giving one person the complete control to essentially Veto SIPs before they even reach the Special Council (who also has Veto power and was not nominated) seems like we won’t ever have to worry about full decentralization or even anything remotely close to full decentralization.
Apologies if I didn’t explain this fully.
I didn’t mean a single individual having this power, nor did I mean to give them any power to impede the flow of SIPs.
I was more speaking to the inefficiencies in the current struture over at the ApeCoinDAO, where they have multiple legal entities serving as Working Groups to the DAO. It creates inefficiencies in operations and funding, which then means the DAO isn’t being served as best it could (don’t get me wrong, the people in those roles are great).
If Arasakio is ultimately replaced by a more community driven approach (which I would be supportive of personally), I would still argue to have some sort of centralized structure to ensure people and resources are effectively deployed to serve the DAO.
2 Likes
I’m a long-time Sandbox Land holder, but also a long-time game developer in Decentraland. This Sandbox DAO proposal defines a similar structure and voting power calculation as the Decentraland DAO, which has been around for a few years.
In my opinion, the Decentraland DAO has been mostly disastrous for that platform. I hoped that a Sandbox DAO might learn from their experience and make some changes to avoid the worst of it. As a result I’m voting AGAINST this otherwise popular proposal.
The main problem with the Decentraland DAO is that whale voters – those with massive amounts of Land or currency – are able to veto any proposal they want, or pass low-effort proposals for themselves or their friends, enriching themselves while draining money from the platform. Even hundreds of small voters cannot beat 2 or 3 whales who vote together. This has happened time and again over there.
The result has been that indie developers, and even professional game studios, are unable to get funding for good platform-supporting proposals, while anonymous teams with no track record get tons of funding and never deliver.
The proposal process also means that anonymous people who might have little or no experience building online games or doing player marketing end up deciding on proposals written by experts in those fields. Every proposal that says it will bring in revenues or new players is criticized as a “scam” or “money grab” and flame wars ensue in the proposal comments.
DAOs are supposed to somehow remove politics from the equation so that the best ideas rise to the top. In practice, it seems like politics are even worse with DAO voting systems because anonymous people tend to be meaner and more vindictive than doxxed people. And whale voters don’t have to be nice – they can just veto any proposal they don’t like so the budget will go to their own pet projects.
My suggestion is to radically redo the voting system so that it’s not a linear scale based on Land and currency ownership. Perhaps a declining exponential scale of some kind where whale voters get a little more power, but not an overwhelming amount. And, if possible, require KYC so that voters are actually real people (their identity doesn’t need to be made public).
I’m sure this is an unpopular take, but I felt the need to express it. I really don’t want to see The Sandbox DAO go the same way that Decentrand’s has. Thanks.
2 Likes
Don’t worry, it’s not that unpopular. The whales have just made it seem like it is. Very few of those who support it are even saying why. And there are quite a few of us who are vocal about how not happy at all we are with this DAO. We’ve even, unfortunately, seen many who are saying they are voting for the DAO because they want a DAO but don’t understand anything about it, whether that’s because of a language barrier or lack of knowledge or not even reading it.
There is another AMA coming up Wednesday at 5pm UTC if you are interested. That’s the link to the discord announcement about it. Or you can find it directly on Twitter.
1 Like
also increasingly in favor of (guided?) ‘progressive decentralization’
2 Likes