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

Hello @DrMetaverso FYI LAND buyBack is frowned upon by legal, as it can perceived as price manipulation. And our DAO actually owns more than 300 LAND! :grinning: We will soon make them visible on the metaverse map with the DAO logo, but for now it poses some security issues. We cannot do it form our custodian solution

2 Likes

Hello, Thanks again for the feedback and comments and for everyone who joined us yesterday to debate this proposal. Below is a high-level summary of the recording: full recording can be found here: x.com

Vision and Purpose: The proposal aims to leverage Web3 interoperability by creating cross-ecosystem experiences, which benefit users, partner projects, and The Sandbox DAO through increased engagement and targeted user acquisition. We feel the proposal aligns with the core goal of attracting more players by offering immersive and interconnected experiences.

Proposal Structure:

  1. Phase 1 focuses on governance participation in ApeCoin DAO, including a symbolic token swap and staking for potential returns.
  2. Phase 2 will enable community-driven cross-DAO proposals, fostering co-branded initiatives such as joint ventures, in-game experiences, and content creation contests.

Key Community Concerns:

  1. Wrong Timing: Some feel that TSB DAO should focus on internal growth first. We feel like this will activity encourage the desired growth.
  2. Perceived Intrusion: There were concerns that acquiring APE could be seen as an attempt to influence ApeCoin DAO. However, it was clarified that the acquisition is start of the partnership and focused on engagement rather than governance power. Moving toward the phase 2 of the framework (outlined more below)
  3. Unclear Benefits: Some noted the upfront costs without immediate tangible returns. Explaining the phase approach the groundwork for long-term cross-DAO collaborations, with benefits expected from subsequent initiatives.

As mentioned during the Spaces, we had to streamline the proposal to fit within this discussion forum significantly. While we omitted some details (such as staking), additional documentation could have clarified this aspect better. Staking was considered in our original draft, using native yield. This feedback is noted for future improvements. For example, based on the current 11% APY for native staking, if compounded, the yield would be approximately 11,500 APE for the year.

When writing the proposal, the DAO did not yet possess the BAYC/MAYC NFTs, so we refrained from including this in Phase 1. Now that the collection transfer is confirmed, the compounding effect these NFTs can have on staking returns strengthens the case for optimising asset management by the TSB team.

Phase 2 will focus on refining the proposal collaboratively with the community to solidify co-branded initiatives. We believe in the long-term potential of cross-DAO initiatives to boost engagement and visibility for The Sandbox DAO. For example, a co-funding initiative was proposed by TSB DAO to APE DAO for a joint activation that benefits both ecosystems.

That said, we recognise concerns regarding timing and will respect the voteā€™s outcome while remaining open to reintroducing a refined version of the proposal when the community deems it appropriate.

Thank you all for your continued feedback and involvement! And apologies for not having the time today to address each comment individually.

2 Likes

Hi Cyril,.

If this would have stayed the primary goal of this SIP this would have been easier to explain and defend. A big portion of the people of SandFam are investors (landowners, sand holder + investors), and would have understood that. The other benefit of acquiring APEcoin like the potential DAO collaboration could have been brought as additionnal opportunities.
The fact that this SIPs presented only the collaborative potential benefit as the WHAT confused everybody.
The history of the proposal of admin team moving to a SIP via Animoca and current auhtors could have been spelt out when it was asked if authors are proposing this SIP in their names or on behalf of Animoca. (I will put that one on the learning curve of DAOing together)

For the NFT collection : ok thx for the explanation and I aknowledge that there is no connection.

2 Likes

I think @cyril was wise to negotiate it down to 100K APE. The only way I would be supportive of a 1M ApeCoin investment is if ApeCoin DAO made a similar commitment and if SandFam fully discussed the numerous elements of ApeCoin DAO that do not align with TSB DAO.

I would insist on these disclosures being made for phase 2 of this SIP. Itā€™s not wise for us to wade into ApeCoin DAO politics without a full understanding.

Disclosure: I am an Ape holder, and AIP-553 coauthor of a proposal to add transparency auditor roles in the ApeCoin DAO.

1 Like

@cedric I agree with Kurchato here. I think the general feeling from SandFam is that thereā€™s not enough disclosure of the connections and behind the scene on this, so it makes it look like things are hidden or the true purpose is not fully revealed.

I realize this isnā€™t fair to you and I donā€™t think youā€™ve done anything to deserve this perception.

There are a lot of factors at play here that go beyond just this SIP. Iā€™m sorry that youā€™re SIP is getting caught up in that.

You made a lot of progress and built trust by holding the X space with @theKuntaMC , and it felt like a conversation where SandFam got a chance to explore how it really feels about this.

My advice: make the tough choice to do more of them. There are tough questions that didnā€™t get asked that need answering, and I have a feeling youā€™ll continue to see skepticism from SandFam until theyā€™ve been discussed.

Just my opinion.

1 Like

@Lanzer and @KCL thanks for your feedback guys!

Indeed the original idea was portfolio diversification, but this SIP turned into something completely different indeed (cross DAO collaboration), hence why the original aspect to the SIP was lost. I personaly think it is a good thing, to have Animoca really making the SIP their own, and pushing their own ideas, as any SIP author should!

In the future, a pure portfolio diversification SIP, will be easier to write I think, and should have more than just purchasing APECOIN (Stable coin at least typically). And focus on the proportion of the portfolio that is rotated, from which budget, how often, how performance is monitored etc etc. As an admin I try to only write admin SIP (you know like budget approval (spoiler alert: end of Feb, beginning of March), that sort of things), and Iā€™m always hesitant to push for SIPs, as the initial reaction seems to be mistrust, for now. But maybe a ā€œportfolio diversification SIPā€ is an admin one (especially if we are the one performing the swaps and the monitoring etc), so I could get to work.

What do you think?

@Lanzer about the social media aspect. Still not my thing but Iā€™ll continue to make an effort :grin:.

3 Likes

Hi @Cyril , does the TSB DAO have power in the Sandbox board?

Hi @zeromiedocrypto , the only proposals coming from APE DAO that I currently see are these (i canā€™t find any discussion about TSB DAO in the forum , https://forum.apecoin.com/) :
Also : Have you a link to the APE DAO collection ? On the TSB map, I just found a 3x3 land, a pretty small property for a project like Bored APE.
Saddly, nothing build on it, maybe starting with an experience will show us that APE really care about a TSB collab

Since the main argument is diversification then I remain with a 100% NO vote.
If we are looking for diversification, then letā€™s put Bitcoin in the TSB DAO portfolio.
Diversifying by purchasing an unstable token may not be the best choice.
So, letā€™s build together, letā€™s cooperate, letā€™s move forward together, letā€™s be strong together, but as we say in french :
ā€œles bons comptes font les bons amisā€.

Ah. Okay, that makes sense now.

Yes, and I think weā€™re starting to see how to handle the mistrust. The mistrust is addressed a lot faster if authors announce their disclosures, associations, and context for the SIP. Like with the CC SIP, I feel that the mistrust was resolved because Kunta made clear without being asked that it was based on one of my SIP Ideas and then I made clear what my collaboration with the DAO Admin Team was.

No one had to ask us to disclose these things. We knew the community would want to know the answer to ā€œwho is pulling the strings?ā€

I think we can try it from the DAO Admin Team. I honestly think Cedric and Zeromieā€™s SIP had a lot of merit, it just started off on the wrong foot and SandFam didnā€™t have enough time to debate amongst itself. We spent more time trying to understand all the disclosures/context rather than whether we were ready for ApeCoin DAO responsibilities or staking APE rewards.

If we only give it to the DAO Admin to do, then we may unfairly limit the potential for SIP authors to note when a worthy portfolio diversification SIP arises. I think it could reasonably go either way.

@Cyril Thatā€™s just my initial reaction, thoughts?

Hahaha, no problem. I understand that about you now, Cyril, I accept you for who you are :slightly_smiling_face: :smile:

2 Likes

Hello Sir, the short answer is absolutely 0. TSB board is made of investors and execs of the company, and the DAO is none of them.

Now the long answer. Some board members listen to me and take my calls. So Iā€™m able to put things on the board agenda on behalf of the DAO. But I never assist those meetings. I donā€™t participate in the discussions, vote, or even know what are the other items on the agenda. I rely on my contacts to pass on the messages. If necessary, Iā€™d prepare some materials for them beforehand. The DAO topics for board attention are very high profile. Like budget and annual donation for example. SIPs or internal matters are not of the boards interest.

It is also important to note, that just being on the agenda can be tricky. As you can imagine, the board deal with sensitive matters, and the DAO can sometimes be a lesser priority. If that is the case, the DAO items can be pushed to the next round, which can happen in a month or 2.

Then once we are indeed on the agenda, there is a discussion. If I do my job correctly, the request pass ā€œas isā€, because I have previously discussed the matter with as many board members as possible beforehand.

Hope it helps

2 Likes

Hi @Lanzer, I have thought about it, and for now, Iā€™d keep it simple and advance a SIP from the admin team, and post it on the forum for debate, as for any other SIPs. I donā€™t see how we could do it any other way, as it would be needed to access the DAO treasury. So we would rely on the DAO treasurer, who is a professional portfolio manager, (and one of the very few to perform the necessary swaps with the best possible coins, within the parameter agreed on the SIP, which could be

  • Size of the portfolio to be rotated
  • Objective of the rotation: For now Iā€™m leaning heavily toward just ā€œprotect the treasuryā€ instead of ā€œtrying to make a profitā€ as it is more risky. Or we could have 80% allocated to safe Swaps, and 20% to more riskier ones, for example. To be debated on the SIP.

To avoid derailing the conversation on this particular thread that is about the ā€œcross DAO collab SIPā€, Iā€™d propose to table this particular discussion to after we have the budget SIP voted, as anything else would be premature at this stage.

Iā€™ll open a convo about this later in March. Make sense?

2 Likes

This AIP process has provided valuable insights into how we can enhance our processes and communication moving forward. I believe I was the first one to vote with a detailed explanation in the comment section but there could be a time were a few positive votes are being casted and then a proposal passes and we are not sure what we are getting.

This SIP was a significant ask to the DAO and the ensuing discussions revealed two possible distinct motivations behind it: treasury diversification and/or participation in other DAOs. It appears that neither of these options would have passed.

A delegate also mentioned that the proposal did not have an official ā€œrecommendationā€. In addition, much of the Q&A lead by the delegates usually occurs at the SC level with delegates voting on a ā€œfinalā€ proposal.

If our goal is treasury management, I suggest we consider implementing a more structured approach, such as an RFP process to select the best partner. I would also prefer focusing on ā€œconvincingā€ other ecosystem to participate in TSB DAO than the other way around.

2 Likes

thanks @Airvey. Just to clarify, if you are referring to the SC recommendation, there was one. It was just moved a bit further down, as it was the only thing you could see from the ā€œcollapseā€ version of the SIP on the Snapshot UI, which was not ideal to understand what the SIP is about, at a glance.

here:

3 Likes

I wonder why itā€™s not within the DAOā€™s purview to know what the Foundation believes is so sensitive that the DAO cannot know the details of. Iā€™m struggling to think of a topic, regulatory or otherwise, that would reduce even the DAO administrator to participating ā€œonly if thereā€™s timeā€.

That seems ironic and self defeating for what the Foundation was created to do.

Perhaps I misunderstand?

Can you clarify this, please, ser?

: ) Iā€™ve reread this a few times and kinda still scratching my head.

I was inferring what I could from this and the rest of Cyrilā€™s response. It gave some very valuable insight and I was left wondering what I replied with up above. His role was far more detached from the Foundation than I originally thought, which really surprised me.

Iā€™m sure your upcoming Foundation episode will clarify some valuable insight as well.

1 Like

Keeping an eye on your community. Want to tell your side of the story? Drop us a line.

3 Likes

Thanks for the interest, @DAOTimes :handshake:t4:

You may wanna check this out @CedricL and @zeromiedocrypto.

Iā€™ve replied to DAO Times to make myself available to represent TSB DAO in any inquiries they may have, but (as the authors of this SIP) you may wish to represent your positions and the views of Animoca. cc @mo_ezz14

2 Likes

@Lanzer I was referring to The Sandbox board, not the DAO/foundation board. There is no foundation board actually. As you can imagine the decision to wire millions of SAND to a separate legal entity (the DAO, wrapped by its foundation) is taken at the highest level of The Sandbox. This is what I meant.

Sorry if my message was unclear!

2 Likes

The SIP has been rejected by the community. Nevertheless, the DAO has learned valuable insights. Thank you all for the engaging and thought-provoking debate!

1 Like

Ah. Okay, I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying Cyril

2 Likes