Just listened to the space. Don’t think it addressed my concerns. I appreciate sebs vote of confidence so I trust that we have a good team here, but it still seems like an art collection to me.
IMO we have two angles we can take with this collection, liquidate and invest safely, or just invest in fun things we like. The sip seems like the latter to me. I don’t think we can afford to do that. Economies are bad right now and we would be imprudent to not fully liquidate.
All this said, I voted quickly because of the incentive given recently to make sure delegates vote fast. I would change my vote to yes if we put a strict limit on percentage of the portfolio allocated to art, maybe 10% of current.
Am i way off base here or what do we think? Is sandbox so financially stable we can afford to be gambling with $1M?
We’re doomed if these three end up managing our collection. Why isn’t this project being handled by the DAO team itself ( you could hire someone, like you did with Kunta) or trusted members from our own ecosystem?
We’re spreading our money and energy way too thin trying to bring in people we don’t even know, with unclear intentions , to manage the DAO’s NFT collection. We need to fix our house before we let people in!
This whole thing is adding another layer of bureaucracy we don’t need. Honestly, we just got a better understanding of who and what the DAO team does (huge thanks to Lanzer), and now we’re throwing in a whole second level to deal with?
It’s going to overcomplicate everything and I’m not on board with this direction.
Managing the collection isn’t just about resumes or who’s backing you from TSB’s main office; it’s about trust. The DAO is OURS → it’s a community platform and tool, and is surely not a corporate placement program.
Nope, I don’t even go to that site, I’ll leave such places to you.
But in your line of work, you need to understand social cues, especially nonverbal communication, if you want to connect with and influence the people you’re working with. From your response, it’s clear you’re lacking in that area.
Wouldn’t hiring more people for the Admin Team feel more bureaucratic than contracting an outside party?
The DAO may at times feel “bureaucratic” since it is, in fact, community governance. But we do not want to overly concern ourselves with procedure at the expense of efficiency (as being overly bureaucratic would imply).
For sure, it’s worth having thread to discuss this.
However, I think this is a topic we need to raise across all similar SIPs. It’s a complex issue; there’s no black and white answer as each SIP should be evaluated based on its specific parameters and givens.
With SIP-26, we’re talking about a significant portion of the DAO’s treasury, and protecting that treasury is something I’ve always been vocal about.
I’m making the assumption here that the assets in our collection are our most valuable assets. Handing that over to a third-party entity we barely know, and letting them manage it however they see fit, is a major concern for me.
There are better options. You can hire someone to report directly to the DAO team, someone who can do the work for a fraction of the proposed cost, under the guidance and oversight of both the DAO team and the community.
Examples:
You’re proposing to pay Brian €23K just to estimate the value of the collection, and then another €12K to a team for identifying what to sell.
So we’re spending €35K - roughly $40,000 USD - just to figure out what we have and what to do with it?
The whole premise of buying art is flawed, this isn’t 2022. The NFT art market has slowed down. Art and NFTs don’t carry the same value they once did back in the day! that’s the reality! So why would art assets suddenly perform better!
After the podcast last night, I’m voting YES. The concentration of our NFT collection (80% in Yuga Labs PFPs) in risky, underperforming assets requires active management to diversify, liquidate, and reinvest for preservation and growth of its ~1,000 ETH (~$2M) value.
The DAO team has a clear structure that we’ve finally gotten to know in depth, from the financial and legal layers in the Cayman Islands all the way down to us, the community.
And when it comes to communication, we’ve seen that getting information from the DAO team is relatively fast and informative. On the other hand, dealing with third-party entities and even TSB itself, has proven to be much slower and more difficult.
No, I don’t think so, it’s quite the opposite. I would feel much more comfortable knowing that the DAO team, people we already trust and have a relationship with, are managing our resources directly -All aspect of our treasury. sorry, but that’s literally the job of the DAO team, not to hire someone else to do it for X times the cost.
Would you hand over your money to someone you just met? Especially someone with no real ties to the community, over budgeted, and an approach that includes unrealistic ideas like investing in the NFT art market in 2025?
If those three decided to take the NFTs, disappear, act in bad faith, or make backroom deals, there’s nothing in place to stop it or deal with the fallout. We don’t know that they would, but we also can’t say with confidence that they wouldn’t.
That’s supposed to be the DAO team’s job, to look after the DAO and its finances on behalf of the community. If they can’t handle basic internal procedures to manage our own treasury, then honestly, we have a bigger issue than this SIP.
There’s an incentive for voting fast? I must have missed some reading material, can you link me broski
Daww, thanks Metaverso.
This conversation is revealing some really interesting things I hadn’t considered before…I agree with Kunta’s suggestion that we probably need to talk about what parameters there should be for hiring “third-party” entities.
the DAO team does not have the neccesary skillset and experience to do so, none of them worked in collection management in either web3 or Trad art. I suppose the same goes with trusted community members, otherwise I don’t know how to explain why hasn’t anyone proposed another SIP on the topic beside me.
I’d be happy to be hired rather than a contractor, that was the original intention when I was scooted out, however since those are DAO assets I felt it was best to have the Dao Endorsement…you disagree ? I’m confuse by this idea
My intention are clear, I’ve been active on the forum, open to this community feedback and this is not my first attempt to adress the issue related to the collection. I aim to simplify things for the community far from me to add a level of bureaucracy..
I don’t think that at any point I’ve leveraged the fact that I have TSB DAO team, TSB founder and council member endorsement as an argument of authority at any point…
You are contradicting yourself from your previous message, a straightforward hiring process you defended is closer in spirit to the corporate placement you just denounced
I sincerely struggle to take seriously someone who base their decision not on rational argument but on superstition… I know there is nothing I can do to convince someone like you since you don’t use logic.
On top of that you appear to know nothing about my line of work so I invite you to keep you unsolicited advice to yourself.
To add to that Non verbal communication in a written forum is just non-sense. Don’t even get me started on non-verbal communication as a concept in itself, Mehrabian theory has been largely taken out of context and denounced by sociologist across the world and even it author !
You have been the only person so aggressive and denigrating with me so far, if I lack patience and communication skill In your opinion, I can say that from my perspective it’s clear that you lack any form of basic respect
Regarding the safeguarding of the collection from Brian, Kim, and Josephine making any questionable transfers: as i understand it, they would create a weekly list of which assets to do what with, and the final moves would all be controlled by the DAO’s Admin Team
This SIP is our legal binding contract. There’s no mention of the safeguards regarding the transfers. There’s no guarantee they’ll follow through on what was stated. This isn’t a small SIP or a community-trusted partner like Pepe, who we trusted and who delivered.
It’s very insulting to our DAO for someone to come in to our DAO and tell us what’s better for us, and that we lack the skillset or resources, especially when they don’t understand our community, or even own anything in The Sandbox. We don’t need a business transaction; we need people who truly understand SANDFAM, a part of it, and can be held accountable.
Legally, any ambiguity or unclear terms in the contract are interpreted against the party that drafted it. So in this case, do we have any legal or procedural measures in place to intervene and correct the course when things go wrong?
Appear logic to me that elected individual must be held accountable for their mission given by the community.
The quarterly report aim to provide the community the tool neccesary to make an inform decision.
Each and own their interest and focus mine is not on metaverse, I have made project with TSB, metaverse exibition and connected TSB with web3 artist, I just don’t own Sand or land which im free to do so
