You know, you’re kind of right in the way that you’re thinking, and I think that the DAO is the solution to the problem that you see.
If the TSB team is focused on the core, highlighted issues with the platform, and how to fix them moving forward, proposals like this one can fix the smaller, side-issues that can help as the community demands.
We’ve been seeing for years now how developers have been asking for monetization options. So far, when we look at the SIP voting, we can see how the developers agree that the future of the platform would be healthier for developers and players if the developers had another monetization option.
If we use the DAO as a side-loading feature for development, while allowing main TSB funds to focus on core issues expressed in the Discord and other channels, it might be possible to solve all of the problems at the same time.
We will avoid all of the smallest issues brought to the table if we vote things down in these DAO votes. We’ll solve the larger issues that the core team wasn’t already working on when we vote Yes.
We know what the DAO can allocate. As long as we stay within those guidelines, this kind of discourse is perfect for the future of The Sandbox.
Thanks for staying passionate! Let’s keep building together
It’s amazing to see that we’ve had people like you in the chat, in the Discord, and in these conversations for YEARS, trying to make this platform bigger and better, and look at how far we’ve come!
I still don’t get why we’re even talking about building a UGC platform. The wording here is pretty confusing at times and the title doesn’t help either. It makes it sound like a UGC platform is something separate from TSB or something it’s lacking, but TSB has been a UGC platform at its core from the start.
Animoca themselves said this here in 2018 where they use Minecraft and Roblox as examples and here in 2019, where they specifically said they intend to capitalise on the popularity of UGC gaming by giving players the added benefits of true digital ownership of their UGC creations
What we’re actually talking about is creating an aggregator or a hub to promote experiences. TSB is still the UGC platform that provides the tools, content, and infrastructure to access it all.
I think the naming is referring to the ability to create pages and comment/reply. In that sense most websites are UGC platforms to some degree or another. This does not replace TSB as where the UGC game experiences are hosted. Of course we’d need a better name for this site than “the sandbox ugc site”.
There are different teams developing different products concurrently. Work on 0.12 has already been ongoing for quite a while even before 0.10 came out. Internally 0.11 the features for 0.11 have been implemented for months, but there is polishing going on which will continue after the public release as we get more data and feedback from users.
But none of this has to do with the dashboard as the coders who work on the dashboard are completely different people in a different office and even country than the people working on the GM/GC features. There are a myriad of developments going on with the dashboard from backend admin tools, season and event related interfaces, marketplace and map improvements, general bug fixes and new features. Overhauling the rather bare-bones implementation of the user profiles, experience pages, and comment/rating system is in there among everything else, but less pressing as those things are at least functional.
What we’ve proposed is something radically new to shake things up and drive attention where it’s needed. I think that will make what we’ve proposed successful, but it’s not a small task.
This is a strong point of clarity that if raised earlier might have led to a name change for this SIP.
But regardless of the title, it’s great that the depth of conversation in here has clarified the intent of the RFP and the scope of the two competeing authors’ visions.
Hello @KamiSawZe, correct, milestone payments are tied to deliverables, if objectives aren’t met, payments will be paused or canceled. To clarify, the website’s hosting and maintenance costs are the responsibility of the builder.
The revenue model ensures that the DAO recoups its full investment first, after which revenue is split 50/50 until the DAO earns three times its initial investment. Beyond that, the split shifts to 80/20 in favor of the third party. The builder’s share of revenue also helps cover hosting and maintenance costs.
Congratulations to Wake Up Labs and @Gonzacolo on the successful passing of the SIP! Your proposal has gained community support and the DAO is looking forward seeing its implementation.
A big shoutout toThe Council (@KamiSawZe and @TheVisionEx) for your efforts and contributions into the discussion. It was a very close vote, and both proposals brought valuable insights to the community.
On my side, it was the most difficult vote on the DAO.
Wakeup Labs , show us that we were right to trust you.
Build us a great and scalable platform, we’re counting on you.
I still hope for collaboration and that the ideas of the Council QA will be taken into account, even if it has to be done via a new SIP.
I’m convinced of the value of an open source project, so perhaps still too early to talk about it, but having chosen the lowest budget, this perhaps leaves us some room to enrich the UGC plateform with a futur SIP from Council QA.
Dear forum, thank you for choosing us! We will do our best to meet the project’s expectations.
A topic raised by the community is whether the project will be Open Source. From the beginning, both in the proposal and here, we mentioned it as a possibility. However, no one requested it, and it wasn’t a requirement.
Making a project Open Source takes more time, as it must be carefully structured from the start to avoid exposing API keys or private data, maintain clear documentation, and ensure that other developers can collaborate.
In this case, since it’s a project for the DAO, if by the end of development we consider it well-structured, we will evaluate opening it to further empower the community and external developers. However, it is not a requirement and will depend on whether doing so doesn’t lead to overengineering, which, at the current stage of The Sandbox (DAO/Community), wouldn’t provide significant benefits, at least, from our point of view.