SIP-20: Cross-DAO Collaboration Framework - Phase 1 - APE governance participation

🎯 SIP: Finished Rejected
21

Hello @Lanzer,

“I agree that it’s successful in that the cross-DAO participation is happening. Mocaverse’s participation in APE has been seen as intrusive, mostly because it has mostly voted no due to MocaCN’s voting philosophy. ApeCoin DAO members dislike Mocaverse. I think it’s in TSB DAO’s best interest NOT to tread down that path.”

We completely understand your concern and were mindful of this issue. Mocaverse is one of the top delegates and holds significant voting power within APE DAO. We are confident that the 100k tokens we plan to acquire will allow us to participate without holding significant voting weight. We hope this involvement is not perceived as intrusive by the ApeCoin community.

1 Like
22

Yeah I can understand where you’re coming from @zeromiedocrypto , 100K APE doesn’t seem so bad when you put it in that light. I know Mocaverse and MocaCN are voting the way they feel is best. I think the lesson there and what we’re seeing in our own TSB DAO is that we are equally fiscally conservative.

I’ll have to give this some more thought.

3 Likes
23

Before looking outside, I’d make sure it’s all working 100% on the inside.

Right now TSB DAO is very slow on releasing SIP’s to vote, from my own experience, I put this SIP idea on August 2024: SIP - Creator Toolkit Release
It’s 5 months old and still on SIP Review.

6 months ago we weren’t reaching quorum here, which was resolved by lowering the quorum bar, but it indicates the low activity on TSB community towards the DAO. So getting TSB DAO to vote on another DAO right now seems to be too early in my opinion.

I’m not 100% sure what would be the benefits of having VP on Yuga Labs ecosystem right now, and I’m afraid it would divert the attention on what still needs to be improved here.

Not to discard this SIP, but postpone it 1 year.

4 Likes
24

I tried to lower quorum but it didn’t go through. It’s still 30M, what did it was the 24M delegates and now some of the whale wallets voting too.

2 Likes
25

For sake of transparency I would like to know if the authors of this SIPs are part of APE community? Would be useful as well to know that for delegates.

Disclaimer: I am not part of the APE community.

That being said, I personally see very hypothetical benefit of making this move and in front of this hypothetical gains we put a very complex voting concept, an interface with another DAO, trying to co-developped SIPs that will consume further the TSB treasory.

You can even imagine a back loop of control of APE owning land in TSB voting via TSB DAO to orientate TSB DAO vote in there AIPs.

After 9 months of existence we barely manage to engage more people in our DAO and had limitied improvement on TSB via the DAO. I have the same feeling that @PickaxeMaster that first we need to grow our environment before looking outside.

3 Likes
26

Thank you @PickaxeMaster for your comments and feedback.

We agree that attention must remain on improving internal processes, and we are committed to ensuring this initiative does not detract from the critical work needed within the TSB DAO. We believe by increasing the number of voting topics, will naturally boost voter turnout by fostering greater engagement and offering the community more opportunities to discuss and contribute, which we hope will stimulate more participation within TSD DAO.

“I’m not 100% sure what would be the benefits of having VP on Yuga Labs ecosystem right now, and I’m afraid it would divert the attention on what still needs to be improved here.”

Regarding the benefits of having VP within APE DAO, we see this as an opportunity to establish influence in a broader network, potentially opening doors for future collaboration and shared growth.

1 Like
27

Thank you @KCL for raising some very important points:

“For sake of transparency I would like to know if the authors of this SIPs are part of APE community?”

Disclaimer: The authors of this SIP, Katherine and Cedric, are not part of the APE community.

“Would be useful as well to know that for delegates.”

I don’t currently have information on delegate wallets, but I agree it should be made transparent if available.

“That being said, I personally see very hypothetical benefit of making this move and in front of this hypothetical gains we put a very complex voting concept, an interface with another DAO, trying to co-developped SIPs that will consume further the TSB treasory. You can even imagine a back loop of control of APE owning land in TSB voting via TSB DAO to orientate TSB DAO vote in there AIPs.”

We understand the scepticism regarding the hypothetical benefits and the potential complexity of this proposal. While the gains may seem uncertain, we believe that establishing a strategic presence within the APE ecosystem could unlock significant long-term benefits, such as increased visibility, partnerships, and growth opportunities for TSB DAO.

Notably, the proposed framework is simple, cost-effective, and designed to ensure that costs are fully reversible if the initiative does not deliver the anticipated value.

The risk of cross-DAO influence will be addressed in a later phase through the roll-out of the more comprehensive cross-DAO framework. This framework will include safeguards such as conflict of interest policies and clear voting guidelines to prevent undue control or bias.
If the community feels these safeguards should be included in this proposal from the outset, we would happily incorporate them.

“After 9 months of existence we barely manage to engage more people in our DAO and had limitied improvement on TSB via the DAO. I have the same feeling that @PickaxeMaster that first we need to grow our environment before looking outside.”

We recognise and agree that changes to the DAO voting structure and framework are very important. While these fall outside the scope of our proposal, we believe this initiative can aid and complement those efforts by fostering greater engagement and participation within the DAO.

1 Like
28

I understand your points and this might be succesfull but the timing of this proposal is at leat from my point of view not adequate. People of the community wants to focus on the core of the game/creation/economics. That is what is needed now. Focus on core business and not shooting for stars.
In my professional business you consolidtae first the base, your roots, the bread and butter part and when you are strong enough you explore.
I have the feeling that the major part of the community is about that and this is a great sign of maturity.
At the end this will be for me a no vote without any doubt as it is a question about priority.

PS: I would love to see from professionals of tokenomics ideas, supports to the different community about how to monetize within TSB, guidelines, trainings or even academy on WEB3 economy. What is working, what is not… These are impactful ideas.

2 Likes
29

I just want to make sure all of our delegates have had a chance to offer any input or feedback on this discussion, so I am tagging them here:

@moefat @mo_ezz14 @rocksymiguel @KCL @sebga @cryptodiplo @Airvey @hishmad @DAO @Biversen @meowl @Oldwon

:point_right:t4: This SIP will go to vote on Wednesday.

3 Likes
30

I do not believe this proposal advocates anything directly related to the Builders on the platform or to the TSB platform itself.

At the moment, we find ourselves in a situation where there is limited participation in our own DAO. Expanding or trying to cover other ecosystems might not be the best approach right now. Emphasis on “right now”—our focus should be on strengthening internal engagement and supporting our existing ecosystem before looking outward.

While I am not against exploring alliances in the future, I do not think this is the right time to do so, especially if it involves spending funds from the TSB DAO treasury.

Sorry for being late to the discussion :sweat_smile:, but it is good to know that this proposal will soon be up for vote.

5 Likes
31

I agree with Rocksy’s observations. I find myself wanting to vote Yes on this with the Animoca team because I believe we can find a reasonably way to participate but not be seen as intrusive.

I think we need to prioritize our own DAO and health of the ecosystem with specific focus on cultivating revenue streams to make our DAO be self-sufficient.

If this proposal were to include a clear mechanic for staking plus the expected rewards for the DAO to earn, I might then be in favor of it. I’d even be willing to help advise the Animoca team on it if they were willing.

6 Likes
32

For sake of transparency I would like to know if the authors of this SIPs are part of APE community? Would be useful as well to know that for delegates.

I’m part of the APE community. I make the disclosure fairly often so this shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

3 Likes
33

@zeromiedocrypto and I want to thank everyone for contributing to this debate. It has been encouraging to see the interest and thoughtful discussions with diverse perspectives!

We’ve carefully listened to all your concerns, many of which raise fair points. Regarding the proposal being perceived as intrusive by ApeCoin DAO, if approved, we are committed to working diligently on communication and relationship management to ensure our participation is seen as a positive contribution by the ApeCoin community.

As for staying focused on TSB governance before branching out, we believe this initiative will bring significant activity and visibility to TSB DAO. Rather than detracting attention from other SIPs, we’re confident it will amplify engagement across all initiatives and energize the forum.

We truly believe this proposal can bring fresh momentum to TSB DAO and the broader web3 ecosystem, paving the way for a more collaborative future. The potential benefits far outweigh the costs, and we sincerely hope the community agrees and votes in favor of this proposal so we can take this exciting step forward together.

1 Like
34

Thank you @theKuntaMC for reminding me to provide feedback. While I appreciate the effort put into this SIP, I’m not convinced it aligns with the core mission of the DAO. I’m also unsure about the urgency and its potential impact on players and builders.

1 Like
35

Notice to all:

This SIP is open for voting as of TODAY!

1 Like
36

I voted no to this SIPs and explanation is here.

1 Like
37

I’m a bit confused or maybe missing something!
What value do our conversations and debates bring to the table when moving an SIP from an idea to voting??! It seems like we can discuss them for two weeks (and make changes if applicable) but regardless of the consensus, they still go to voting.

I don’t think the consensus here was in favor of moving this SIP to voting, but it went ahead anyway!
I understand that we can vote No or Abstain, but if the SIP is going to end up in voting no matter what, I don’t see the value in adding my voice during the discussion of such SIPs. I might as well just vote!

2 Likes
38

@DrMetaverso, I think after curation and 2 weeks discussion it is up to the author to decide to present it or not to vote. Modified or not with new extra comments/ideas/suggestion of the community. About the voting remember that not all people voting are commenting here (eg: whalevault that have massive VP) so need still to vote even if you think there is a consensus here.

2 Likes
39

My vote is NO

While I believe cross-DAO collaborations are a great idea and could significantly benefit the Web3 ecosystem, I do not think this is the right time for The Sandbox DAO to engage in such initiatives, especially at the cost of 312,500 SAND from our treasury.

Currently, our DAO faces challenges with participation, acceptance and engagement, and we should prioritize addressing these internal issues before expanding our focus to external collaborations. Additionally, allocating such a significant amount of resources to acquire ApeCoins may not yield immediate or tangible benefits for our community.

I invite to @CedricL and @zeromiedocrypto to learn more about The Sandbox platform, its strengths, and its current needs. This would allow you to refine the proposal and present it again at a more suitable time, ensuring the initiative aligns with the Sandbox Ecosystem, DAO’s priorities and long-term goals. At the proper time, I would be glad to vote in favor of this proposal.

For these reasons, I am voting NO on SIP-20.

3 Likes
40

The greatest value in the conversation here is the chance to influence the SIP language by communicating with the author.

As for what benchmarks of metrics are used to determine if an “idea” is invited for SIP submission, that’s something we discussed in the recent SIP Training Session and the considerations for being invited to submit the SIP are:

  1. there are those votes in the top left of the forum (which not everyone seems to even know about and by which we’re limited to only 10 by the software it seems
  2. the quality and quantity of conversation
  3. the general community sentiment

Here are the SIP Guidelines.

Feedback and ideas for improvement of the process are invited!

1 Like