Sure! I’m not a big fan of the Spaces format but I’ll join. TheVisionEx is no longer on Twitter, so it would probably just be me. His account is still active, so he might pop in, but he’s moved on to bluer skies.
2 Likes
Since this has progressed to the voting stage, I’d like to understand how we arrived at the conclusion that such a platform is necessary. Did I miss the study or analysis that determined this need, or are we simply here to choose the operators?
In the last Builder’s Challenge, certain builders were given unfair advantages when Sandbox promoted them. Is this platform The Sandbox’s way of continuing those practices while providing objectors with an alternative platform to redirect their concerns?
Have we considered that smaller builders, unable to afford the platform’s features, might be discouraged from participating, as they would struggle to compete and promote themselves against those who can? This could ultimately lead to the ecosystem losing valuable contributions from individual builders.
Regarding the revenue model, what happens if no significant revenue is generated or if it takes a decade for the DAO to recoup its investment? Who will bear the operational costs of the platform during that period?
Finally, with “none of the proposals” now a voting option, does this mean the SIP will be canceled if selected, or will new options or revised proposals be considered?
3 Likes
The third option for voting is ABSTAIN.
If ABSTAIN gets the majority of votes, the SIP “dies,” but either studio (or others) can have the option to resubmit a SIP Idea that appeals toa broader voting base if they wish to.
@KCL @KamiSawZe
The sites you’re mentioning are made by independent developers/companies (none of them are affiliated in any way) for platforms that are already saturated with games and have millions of active players. We’re nowhere near that point with TSB which is still struggling to offer games with compelling gameplay (not the fault of creators here but GM which still lacks a lot of features). The day that happens (and I hope it does for this platform) you won’t need to spend money through the DAO because those sites will emerge on their own as there will be a market and potential profitability.
1 Like
Count with us for the Space!
You can reach me through X or Telegram. (@gonzacolo)
1 Like
Of course, my vote will go to Alex, not because he’s an amazing developer, but because he’s deeply involved in the whole community. Alex, I wish you success with the project, and I hope everything works out for you!
2 Likes
The vote should first be whether or not there should be such a platform. If yes, it should be decided who will do it. It feels like such a forced imposition.
When you look at the voting page, it doesn’t seem that way. It seems like if there are 2 teams, it will be done by an external team. In other words, it seems like it will be done and paid for in any way, you just have to choose who to give the money to. That’s why I’m voting for Abstain.
If it were clearer and more understandable for everybody, I would vote for the council.
4 Likes
The third option doesn’t actually read “ABSTAIN” on Snapshot.
Instead, the language reads, “Neither of the proposals” = 3rd voting option
1 Like
This is a valid concern.
Perhaps we can improve the process where SIPs go from “ideas” to “curation”, as that is the step that really sets the path towards voting in motion.
I chose “None of these proposals” for this SIP.
This SIP should be first: do we need an UGC Platform?
And after, if the answer is yes: who to do it?
Same concerns as Biversen.
BTW 57k is a lot, 150K is totally crazy.
3 Likes
I understand when I look at these options
Voting options.
The Council QA LLC >> Make Council
Wakeup Labs >> Make Wakeup Labs
None of the proposals >> Neither of them should do it, let’s find someone else.
Not only me but also the people I exchange ideas with in the Community perceive it in the same way. If we all understand the same thing, it should be clearer.
Absolutely. It would be good to make it more understandable for everyone.
Note: the first question wouldn’t need to be presented as a “SIP Idea” and could just be a discussion in 
General which may or may not lead to a “SIP Idea” depending upon how the community responds to the discussion.
The first question of “should we?” doesn’t need a SIP, though.
The course of action that could lead to that for this specific topic would require ABSTAIN winning this vote, but the concept above is relevant to other ideas in that the “question” component itself need not be a SIP, but just a discussion.
Would it be clearer if we used the word “ABSTAIN”?
Becuase the third option doesn’t mean “neither of the two teams should get the job,” it means that the proposals themselves are shot down.
So, technically, the same two teams (and others) could advance new proposals for the same or similar ideas.
I hope that clarity helps. It kind of nuanced in that ABSTAIN doesn’t mean “let’s find someone else,” so much as it means “the details of these two proposals do not appeal”
No.
There should be a 2-stage vote. The first vote is whether such a project is needed or not. If yes, the second round of voting should decide which team should do it.
I understand you, but the problem here is not the words. It is a confusion of meaning. No matter what we write in the 3rd option, the meaning that will come out is this SIP has already been decided. It seems to the community that only the money will be given to whom is it put to a vote.
Council - Wakeup labs or third party. The perception seems to be this way.
2 Likes
We certainly want to avoid any confusioin that we can!
Thanks for your candid feedback on the SIP process.
Adding a second vote to the process might not make things easier, but I’d be keen to hear more about how you think would work.
Maybe create a “SIP Process” thread in General for this discussion?
We’re certainly open to improving the process.
As for this SIP, what do you suggest we can do to make it clearer that if option 3 (abstain) wins the vote that the SIP dies and no funds are distrubuted to anyone??
2 Likes
I want to share this analogy with everybody, that it’s have been in my mind for some weeks, when I just read this SIP
Let’s imagine this scenario, I’m a recognized Builder with some years in the platform, but with poor working equipment, bad computer, etc. I propose to the DAO to fund better equipment and workspace for $10,000.
However, when it comes time to vote, the only options for the voters are:
A: Buy my equipment on Amazon ($10,000)
B: Buy my equipment on Ebay ($10,000)
C: none of this stores
This omits a key step: first deciding whether the DAO should fund my proposal or whether my idea is valid.
The same I think is happening with this SIP.
I am on of the few that think that we need a new platform.
I believe that if The Council wins, if I have any problem related to the platform I know who to talk to and that it will be solved promptly and urgently and if Wakeup Labs wins, I know that if I have any problem related to the platform I know who to talk to (and in spanish, not too important 
) and that it will be solved promptly and urgently. Both of them have done a good job of showing us their proposal.
In the event that there is no new platform, we Builders will continue using the current one, with the same old problems and no solution in sight.
While it has good intentions, it seems to have already been unilaterally decided that:
- A new UGC platform is needed.
- Its funding must come out of the DAO treasury.
This process, by skipping the discussion about whether we really need a new platform, limits community participation and misses the opportunity to generate valuable dialogue between the company and the users who will use this new platform.
I think the same case is happening with the Community Council SIP, it is going to vote directly for who will be part of the CC, omitting first whether there should be a CC role at all.
Perhaps we want to get things done quickly, but feel that important steps are being skipped. This limits community participation and misses the opportunity to generate valuable dialogue about whether these decisions are truly responsive to everyone’s needs.
(One thing I am noticing is that there is more communication, discussion or the proposals are made known more when they are already on the voting stage, compared to when they are under discussion. )
7 Likes
This is a very valid point, Rocksy!
For this SIP, we released an RFP (request for proposals) to get some proposals together to start the discussion process. Perhaps the creation of the RFP by the Admin Team was premature and could have waited for more conversation around the topic so people could voice their opposition to the idea altogether. But either way, if the majority is against it, they can kill it.
All of this constructive convo about the SIP Process came at a very good time since we just released SIP Training 1.0. We are very open to feedback on how to improve the process, including the peripheral decisions that are made, such as when to release a RFP.
This one you blame on me. I determined there was a need for more community representation in the DAO, based on the feedback I got over dozens of 1:1 calls and the poll with 371 participants.
The conversation as to whether or not there should be a CC at all is still open. The nomination period (which is the discussion period) is a chance for anyone who thinks the idea should be scrapped altogther to speak up and rally support for killing it. Right now, there is only a single candidate, so it seems there’s limited interest. We are considering extending the nomination/discussion period another two weeks, until Feb 19th. Until then, candidates can nominate themselves and/or people can make the case that we don’t need this at all.
Ain’t that the truth?!
People always care more about things at the last minute.
2 Likes
Not to mention the exorbitant budget to create such a site. I looked briefly at the Google Doc of the Council QA LLC (the one that’s currently winning in the votes) and here is a part of the explanation :
3-4 staff required for a 60-90 day turnaround, billable at $1,000 per day per developer
I’m not American, but is it normal to be paid this much as a web developer ?
2 Likes
Yes. That fits perfectly into the average costs for American software devs, where their hourly compensation ranges from $40/hour to $60/hour depending upon seniority/experience.
3 Likes
I agree with you that there was no vote on wether we need or not this SIP but the Admin team called for this RFP and explained the rational of this RFP on the forum and we could have debate about the need or not of that SIPs at that time.
If all think it should not be done we should vote abstain/none of the 2.
3 Likes