Can you please confirm if it’s in this SIP to stake the 100K via ApeStake and direct the proceeds of staking as a revenue stream back to the TSB DAO?
I’m supportive of this SIP, but I’m struggling with the priority of TSB ecosystem efforts versus us wading into another ecosystem before we are ready.
Again, full disclosure: I am an Ape holder and I’m an AIP coauthor. I really like ApeCoin DAO and I support ApeChain.
“Can you please confirm if it’s in this SIP to stake the 100K via ApeStake and direct the proceeds of staking as a revenue stream back to the TSB DAO?”
This is not explicitly outlined in the proposal, but we are not opposed to it. It could either be proposed in a later SIP or directly implemented by the Sandbox DAO admin team, as it’s a relatively minor point that might not require another SIP.
Our goal was to keep this proposal as light as possible, to avoid unnecessary complexity (it’s already quite heavy in its lightest form 
).
“I’m supportive of this SIP, but I’m struggling with the priority of TSB ecosystem efforts versus us wading into another ecosystem before we are ready.”
We are very cautious about maintaining our focus on TSB and not overextending into the ApeCoin ecosystem. This SIP is primarily aimed at building cross-DAO proposals, and our efforts will immediately shift to creating the first cross-DAO proposal after this vote.
The participation in ApeCoin governance is simply a natural extension of the process we propose. We see it as an opportunity to demonstrate interest in their ecosystem and foster stronger relationships between communities. However, this is not the primary focus of the proposal.
It seems much of this discussion has focused heavily on this aspect of the SIP, while the broader objective of enabling cross-DAO proposals has been somewhat overlooked… The primary aim of this proposal is not participation in ApeCoin DAO governance but to facilitate and stimulate cross-DAO initiatives between ApeCoin and Sandbox. That’s where our energy will be directed following this vote.
I would vote NO
1- buying ape coin will not bring people into our DAO and will force us to take time to monitor the APE DAO.
2- if we want to diversify our cash flow, the only swap that would make sense would be in BTC (because it is BTC), eth and pol because we operate on these L1 and L2 (but is it legal as DAO to do that? )
3- An APE is certainly more expensive than a TSB nft but it seems to me that the value proposition of TSB is clearly superior.
4- There are APE owners who are in TSB, which means that the connection between the DAOs already exists through the users.
5- If this is truly a cross interest between the DAOs then it should be clearly stipulated that this would only be feasible under the condition that the APE DAO purchases an equivalent value of Sand.
(personal opinion : which, even in these conditions would perhaps not be a good move)
@Geraldine , there is no council recommendation for this SIP ?
As it is too late to make the explicit change in the SIP (since it is active in voting now), the best we can do at this point is a digital handshake here on the Forum in which the author can agree to commit to such an action.
Staking (and returning the rewards to TSB DAO) could be appealing for more voters on this SIP.
Are there any precedents of similar actions in past SIPs where the author committed post-voting to changes?
There are no previous examples that I am aware of an author committing to implement a component of a SIP that wasn’t in the document that went through vote.
So, in this case, if @CedricL commits to staking the APE, it would be a “code of honor” or an “informal” commitment they’ve made to the community.
Any other thoughts on this, @Cyril?
Hey @CedricL ,
I am in a disagrement with the statement you are making here [quote=“CedricL, post:42, topic:1579”]
It seems much of this discussion has focused heavily on this aspect of the SIP, while the broader objective of enabling cross-DAO proposals has been somewhat overlooked… The primary aim of this proposal is not participation in ApeCoin DAO governance but to facilitate and stimulate cross-DAO initiatives between ApeCoin and Sandbox. That’s where our energy will be directed following this vote.
[/quote]
There are a lot of comment here that are willing to explore in a way the cross DAO collaboration but the vast majority of the people commented about the wrong timing of that proposal but it seems you are overlooking that feedback.
PS: as side note I am very curious to see the SC recommendation on that SIP taking into consideration that the authors pushed that idea in their own name and not in theire current official position in Animoca.
Valid and fair points. I wonder if this could be translated into some sort of influence the CC members can assert during the creation level of SIPs!
I’m coming from that since the day, we are generating ideas and creating SIPs here on this forum, and some get so much positive attraction that they end up in voting. I would assume we should have some sort of a ‘stop’ mechanism as well."
I’m thinking that since we’re generating ideas and creating SIPs here on this forum, some get so much positive attraction that they end up in voting. I would assume we should have some sort of ‘stop’ mechanism as well.
Thanks for the info. Basically, we’ve got the means to create and influence SIPs here, but I don’t think it would be a complete system without having a way to stop an SIP from going to voting.
Relying on the votes to settle things is a bit problematic to me at this point. For example, not a lot of people voting actually read the SIP → SIP-21 (a zero budget SIP)
Well…can’t argue with you on that one Dr M 
I was confused about that one too.
I might count myself as a reference on that one. I committed to making $15K for SIP-18 last more than 15 episodes. SIP didn’t pass, but I made it before the end of the vote. Linky
After verification, the ApeCoin staking yield is distributed automatically as native yield, without requiring active staking, as long as it is held on ApeChain.
Since the SIP doesn’t specify which chain the ApeCoin should be held on, we can consider that holding it on ApeChain is part of the plan, allowing us to benefit from the yield. In fact, this approach makes the most sense.
“There are a lot of comment here that are willing to explore in a way the cross DAO collaboration but the vast majority of the people commented about the wrong timing of that proposal but it seems you are overlooking that feedback.”
Yes, you are right, I apologize for the poor formulation of my message.
However, I’m not overlooking those feedbacks. We have answered several times, and our response is:
As a response to your particular feedback (which I apologize for not addressing directly earlier), I completely understand your point about priorities. However, the involvement and energy we wish to dedicate to this are driven by our personal vision and what we believe in.
I am personally very convinced that cross-ecosystem initiatives are the future of web3 and are deeply undervalued by projects. That’s why I wanted to push this proposal and why I am fighting for it. I believe it represents one of the main (if not the main) value-adds of web3, and we would benefit heavily from spending more energy and resources on it.
Also, it’s worth noting that the primary goal of implementing a cross-DAO collaboration framework is to encourage innovative proposals to emerge. Such proposals are very likely to aim to drive activity on the game/creation side while onboarding other communities in TSB ecosystem (which I believe is aligned with the current priorities of TSB).
That being said, if the proposal is refused today, I’ll be happy to bring it back later when the community feels the timing is better.
Hey @sebga, I’ve put the council recommandation after the TL;DR, on snapshot so that you got it after reading that part, not straight before reading it. Let me add also to this conversation!
Hi @sebga,
1 - Yes, that’s right, it would require some time and involvement. That’s a cost to pay to:
Also, just like with any regular SIP, people are not forced to participate. Those who are deeply uninterested can simply stay away from the ApeCoin initiative.
2 - That’s correct. Diversification is not the primary aim of this proposal, though.
3 - We’re not saying in any way that ApeCoin is superior to Sandbox. The point is that ApeCoin has some branding & visibility power we could benefit from (which doesn’t mean that TSB has no branding power or less branding power than Ape).
4 - There is some overlap between every web3 community. Even if connections already exist, it doesn’t mean we can’t make them 10x or 100x stronger and take more benefits from it.
5 - Yes, that’s a fair point that some people have raised. We considered such an option while designing the SIP but decided this version was simpler to implement. Considering how poorly this SIP has been received (partially due to its unilateral nature), maybe we were wrong. That’s definitely something to think about for a potential future version.
This is another great idea for the improvement of the “SIP Process.”
I would love to see a thread started in 
General called “SIP Process” which can be dedicated to a discussion around improving the process.
Now that makes sense. Us investing in ApeChain while yielding a native stake on ApeCoin buys us time to figure out how we want to vote. Shoot, we could even do a follow-up SIP to choose a delegate that we majority vote agree with.
With the new changes coming to ApeCoin, where the minimum contribution threshold is 500K-ish, our 100K investment won’t get us negative attention that Moca’s 6M vote does, AND we’ll be seen as a positive contributor to the space, AND we’ll jump start our road to budget sustainment.
I think I’m leaning on changing my vote to Yes now, @CedricL @zeromiedocrypto .
I see the current vote is majority NO, but I think you should heavily stress the value that native staking on ApeChain returns back to the DAO. Perhaps do a quick monthly/yearly calculation and then do a quick X Space with @theKuntaMC and @ all the delegates.
I am no longer concerned about starting off on the wrong foot with cross-DAO relations if we buy it on ApeChain. 
Hello @Lanzer, thank you for your comments and questions so we could clarify about the native staking of the APE tokens.
“Shoot, we could even do a follow-up SIP to choose a delegate that we majority vote agree with.”
While this is a valid consideration, one of the core objectives of this proposal is to drive greater discussion and activation within TSB DAO. Delegating this responsibility would detract from the framework’s intended purpose of fostering engagement and alignment.
" With the new changes coming to ApeCoin, where the minimum contribution threshold is 500K-ish, our 100K investment won’t get us negative attention that Moca’s 6M vote does, AND we’ll be seen as a positive contributor to the space, AND we’ll jump start our road to budget sustainment."
You’re right—our 100K investment was chosen deliberately to avoid negative optics. Starting with a small but meaningful amount aligns with our goal of building a positive reputation while fostering trust to build on the cross-DAO relationships.
“I see the current vote is majority NO, but I think you should heavily stress the value that native staking on ApeChain returns back to the DAO. Perhaps do a quick monthly/yearly calculation”
We completely agree. We’re actively working on APY return calculations to communicate the benefits of native staking on ApeChain clearly.
*“… and then do a quick X Space with theKuntaMC and all the delegates.”
We’re arranging an X Space to outline these and address new or existing concerns in more detail, report the staking APY returns the DAO could expect, and provide a platform for continued direct discussion ahead of the final vote.
We’ll share the date and time for the Space here ASAP, and I hope everyone who has participated in this discussion can join so we can continue the conversation.
@CedricL and I genuinely appreciate the thoughtful insights and engagement this proposal has inspired, and regardless of the outcome, we’re eager to collaborate more closely with community members on future proposals.
I understand that this seems like a departure from the intent. It is a little bit, but as the vote is currently showing, a lot of the community doesn’t align with the intent as-is. I’m offering a way to help turn it around.
Have you considered anything other than ApeCoin/ApeChain?
Hi @Kaiten,
Yes, we did think about other options.
For example, we think launching the process with OpenCampus (EDU token) would also be great, as they are leaders in the education x crypto sector, and The Sandbox is an awesome tool to create immersive educational experiences, so there are synergies here.
We finally chose Ape for the pilot as there is a big overlap in communities already, as well as some past initiatives of Ape experiences in TSB.
