I think itâs like âputting a patch on itâ or âsweeping something under the carpet and move onâ, but itâs not a real or effective solution.
Youâll get no argument from me there. This is definitely a patch until SC elections in Dec 2025.
I think we should give the CC a chance instead of killing it before it has the opportunity to make something of itself. I can think of a number of things I want to do if I were electedâŚlivestreamed town halls, overall better connection between the DAO members.
Iâve never spoken against The Sandbox. Only The Sandbox DAO and those in charge of it as their positions relate to leading The Sandbox DAO. Iâve even made it clear that I very much respect Seb leading The Sandbox but I do not respect him leading The Sandbox DAO at all. Because I am an Ambassador for The Sandbox not The Sandbox DAO. When given the chance to become an employee of The Sandbox DAO there to serve the DAO I made it very clear that I absolutely refused to serve the DAO in my application and if it was acceptable to continue serving The Sandbox and The Sandbox Community then I would look at the contract given to me. Oddly enough, I was never given that contract. Nor did I lose my previous title. And if The Sandbox ever wants to take away my title as Ambassador for speaking up for the community by speaking out against The Sandbox DAO, they can, but that wouldnât help with the whole âThe Sandbox and The Sandbox DAO are two completely separate entities.â
But regardless of what we want to believe and what we think this SIP would do, the SIP is as it states, another entity there to serve The Sandbox DAO and not the Community. Could the two agree? Absolutely. And when that happens, serving The Sandbox Community would mean serving The Sandbox DAO, but could they also disagree? Absolutely, as was stated by Kunta, a main reason for this SIP being needed is to address the previous disagreements and correct them towards the future. But the SIP makes it clear who the Community Council serves in disagreements, and itâs not the community.
This. Exactly this. This and a chance to discuss the candidates and the DAO were all we asked for from the very beginning. And since they donât want to give us that, I see no reason to support a Community Council without any power. Iâd rather step away and return when it is time to vote those on the Special Council out so that the Community has Actual representation.
But Seb made it clear, we could vote for the DAO exactly how he wanted it or we would have to do absolutely everything on our own without any help from him.
So for now, while it is the DAO exactly how he wanted it with him and his friends getting paid and no one in a position of power that has any knowledge of the community and the Communityâs Interests they claim to represent, I want no part of this DAO. Nor do I want to support and help them in their re-election by putting in a Community Council with no power to advise them, especially when weâve already had direct communication with the SC and Admin team and seen how they responded to us.
Iâve never spoken against The Sandbox. Only The Sandbox DAO
I made it very clear that I absolutely refused to serve the DAO in my application
Okay. Fair. Thanks for the correction.
But the SIP makes it clear who the Community Council serves in disagreements, and itâs not the community.
I will look at this very intently before this goes up for vote. I did not interpret the language to say that the CC chooses TSB Foundation over SandFam. I would have recommended its elimination had I seen that.
Please take a look at the below. What are you seeing that tells you the opposite?
Here are the sentences where I DONâT see it compelling the CC to choose TSB Foundation over SandFam
will be seated for 2-year terms to work alongside the DAO Admin team in a formal capacity
The CC ensures the communityâs sentiment is well represented in the decision-making processes of DAO the Admin Team.
to serve as a primary conduit of information between the SandFam community at large and the DAO Admin Team
CC members must prioritize the long-term success and development of The Sandbox ecosystem
Sentences that give me pause but still doesnât compel CC to choose TSB Foundation over SandFam
As official representatives of the DAO, CC members help disseminate DAO information
while serving as a representative of the community and the DAO Admin team
CC members must prioritize the long-term success and development of The Sandbox ecosystem
Having looked at the proposal more closely, I believe it seeks to address the problem of a lack of communication between the community and the DAO and putting a âpatchâ about the lack of representation in important positions or decision making, not being its focus, but rather an add-on.
The SIP states:
This limitation makes me wonder: Who exactly is this SIP targeting as potential Community Council (CC) members? Most of the active participants in the DAO fall under these categories, and to be honest the ones that dont fall are a few, I could be wrong, but looking at the participation in the forum I may be somewhat close to right.
How would someone be convinced to apply for this position, especially considering it carries significant responsibilities and obligations to the DAO Admin Team, without any form of compensation?
While I agree with the idea of fostering better communication, I feel the proposed
is too limited in scope. From my perspective, the term âDAO membersâ refers to a small minority within the broader Sandbox community.
Instead, the focus should be on âoverall better connection between the whole Sandbox community and the DAO.â This would address the gap between the broader community and the DAO, rather than keeping the initiative confined to those already engaged with the DAO.
@KandidlyKristen 's point resonates with me: âThe DAO exists to serve the community.â
However, I also believe the DAO is more than just the Special Council, the Advisory Board, or the Admin Team and those should be a minority at the very least. It also includes the broader community we all knowâbuilders, players, asset creators, and project followers, streamers, etc. Yet, at the moment, only a really small fraction of this community actively engages with the DAO and thatâs a problem.
Getting back to my question:
How would someone be convinced to apply for this position, especially considering it carries significant responsibilities and obligations to the DAO Admin Team, without any form of compensation?
After these weeks of trying to get to know the feelings of some members of the community as a delegate (you know, iâm something of a CC myself , which i think I wouldnât always do in all SIPs because itâs a big job and time consuming) i realized that many community members are deeply involved in other activities:
Developing games or assets (full time).
Playing games or following projects within the Sandbox ecosystem (full time or in spare time).
Or simply choosing not to engage with the DAO.
Given this, and considering the exclusion of the the above mentioned groups from eligibility, as well as the time and effort required for the role, What kind of people does this SIP consider as suitable candidates to strengthen the connection between the whole Sandbox Community and the DAO?
(you know, iâm something of a discussant myself , insert Norman Osbourn Meme)
Also, I think that, while the idea itself isnât bad, having all of this from a Community Council member can be something useful and necessary
It could also serve as a way to identify future Special Council members. However, I question whether a two-year term for five people is the best approach. Perhaps shorter terms or rotating memberships could provide more opportunities for different individuals to contribute and allow for better evaluation in future elections.
That said, if five members is something I have a hard time seeing willing to take on so much obligation and responsibility, without receiving some compensation, the harder it will be to see it if there are more members on the CC.
I believe that this SIP can be improved to achieve a structure that will improve the relationship between the community and the DAO.
[quote=ârocksymiguel, post:46, topic:1553â]
Who exactly is this SIP targeting as potential Community Council (CC) members?
[/quote]
Itâs looking to add to the pool of DAO contributors, instead of increasing the number of hats an individual wears. More diversity, less overlap.
How would someone be convinced to apply for this position
I think it would closely follow the same reason you applied to be a delegate, and the same reason I am applying for CCâŚthe DAO is a place where we can make a change for good.
However, I question whether a two-year term for five people is the best approach
Given a year from now would be after the next SC election, this further illustrates my point that this version of a Community Council is only to help get the current Special Council re-elected for longer so they can keep earning the free money and having all the power. 2 year term means another 2 elections would pass. Yes, they could resign to run for that election, but then again, they could just use their passion now to prove themselves before the next election and avoid this entire thing.
Yes, there are some sentences in the SIP that do not specify who the Community Council serves, such as the ones you pointed out. Here is where it outlines who the Community Council serves:
Hereâs how it should read:
Commit to serving The Sandbox DAOCommunity with integrity, impartiality, and dedication to the DAOâs guiding values and goalsCommunity.
And hereâs some of the other places that should be changed:
Hereâs how it should read:
serving as a representative of the community and the DAO Admin team
Hereâs how it should read:
As official representatives of the DAOCommunity
This is just to serve the DAO to spread more information from and about the DAO instead of what the alleged purpose of the Community Council is, which is to ensure[s] the communityâs sentiment is well represented in the decision-making processes of DAO the Admin Team. The only need is for a Community Voice. Not for another servant for the DAO.
Again, this is just to serve the DAO to spread more information from and about the DAO instead of what the alleged purpose of the Community Council is, which is to ensure[s] the communityâs sentiment is well represented in the decision-making processes of DAO the Admin Team. The only need is for a Community Voice. Not for another servant for the DAO.
Hereâs how it should read:
their vision for the CC and how it aligns with the vision of the DAOCommunity
Hereâs how it should read:
Fair Campaigning: Emphasize positive engagement, transparency, and alignment with the DAOâsCommunityâs values.
Hereâs how it should read:
Focus on promoting ideas, solutions, and alignment with the DAOâsCommunityâs goals rather than criticizing opponents.
Hereâs how it should read:
Adhere to the highest ethical standards , avoiding any actions or decisions that could harm the reputation or functioning of the DAO.
No need to worry about harming the reputation of the DAO if the DAO is respecting the Community. If they arenât and the community speaks out about that, then the CC should not face punishment for speaking on behalf of the community since that is who they should be serving, the community.
Hereâs how it should read: Commitment to the DAOâs Best Interest Community
Primary Responsibility: CC members must prioritize the long-term success and development of The Sandbox ecosystem. Positions taken should reflect the broader communityâs interests, aiming to enhance the sustainability, security, and growth of the TSB ecosystem and the DAO according to the vision of the Community.
Good Faith: All actions and communications should be carried out with honesty, integrity, and a transparent commitment to what is believed to be in the best interest of the TSB ecosystem and the DAO according to the vision of the Community.
While we hope the Community wants the best for The Sandbox ecosystem. A true Community Council should only be focused on ensure[ing] the communityâs sentiment is well represented in the decision-making processes of DAO the Admin Team.
What votes? Nothing else in this SIP mentions voting. It just mentions that the CC will submit reports and hold closed-door meetings with the DAO Admin team. This entire paragraph should be removed because it is irrelevant to the rest of the SIP. Unless the CC is forced to give rational behind why they used their personal VP to vote for SIPs. In which case, this should be made more clear and should be a requirement of every member of the Special Council, Advisory Board, DAO Admin Team, DAO Ambassadors, etc.
While we know I love The Sandbox, this too should be changed because the Community Council should be exactly that, the Community. If the Community goes against the best interest of The Sandbox, the Community Council should still have the responsibility of focusing on what The Community wants. Itâs not like they have any power other than submitting reports anyways.
To me this entire proposal feels like nothing more than a way to help boost the current Special Council and DAO Admin team so they can meet their metrics. Way too much of this is focused on serving the DAO, promoting the DAO and spreading information from and about the DAO. Which makes sense since their metrics are as follows and everyone can see the failures in reaching these metrics given the Special Council and DAO Admin team did so little work to unite the community when they forced this version of a DAO on us with absolutely no compromise.
As I stated before, this is the what needs to be considered if you want a true Community Council, model it after the Special Council but make it specific to being about the Community:
And why does this only address the Communityâs interactions with the DAO Admin team and not mention the Communityâs sentiments in regards to the Special Council that has the real power in the DAO with their ability to not only promote SIPs but more importantly Veto SIPs that they feel do not âcomply with the DAOâs vision and valuesâ?
Since putting just 1 community representative on the Special Council with 4 others that could easily outvote them was too much to ask for, then the only Community Council I would support is one with the same power and funding as the current Special Council.
This would require an amendment to this first SIP given it states that after their first 2(ish) year term the Special Council is on a 1 year term. So for the first year there would be no overlap for the SC, but when it comes time to vote for a new CC there would be the overlap as both the SC and CC would be voted on.
This discussion has gone to a new level and itâll take a little bit of time to digest everything.
Iâd like to say first and foremost that I mostly resonate with what @KandidlyKristen has mentioned about who constitutes the SC and CC, and the powers and remuneration that each has. I also recognise the difficulties from Sebâs POV in starting the DAO. Thereâs no ârightâ way to start it, no matter how thorough itâs planned.
Up to this point, which is 6 months in, weâve yet to see a single SC member engage on any topic in the forums. What Iâve seen is Seb engaging with the DAO, with the remaining attending @Lanzerâs SANDDAO podcast.
Thatâs it.
Am I disappointed? Yes.
To the point of remuneration, I personally believe that roles in key positions like CC, Delegate and what have you down the line, should be remunerated with a nominal sum. This is to recognise the efforts of all those who contribute(literally, not figuratively) to help make the DAO work.
Why do I suggest this? Simple. AB, SC and the Admin team, with their individual job scopes, gets compensated from the DAO treasury. Delegate and CC, also with their individual job scopes, gets none. So we either all take no compensation, or we do. Because if we are all equal, then pay equal as well.
To the point of power held by CC, well honestly with all that work required of them and holding no substantiative power, itâs a tad bit concerning. What I can suggest, is a promise of 1-2 seats on the SC in the next election be allocated to the CC. That way, the community can choose during this SIP, potential individuals who are up to the task of being SC, and then in this 1 and half year before the next SC election, all 5 CC members can be groomed and prepped, with 1-2 out of the 5 being chosen to be in the SC committee.
If the first term for the Special Council is 2 years and, as DAO pointed out, the CC would be a great place to find a potential future member of the SC from the community, then having the first term be 2 years for the CC would effectively eliminate them from running for SC unless they abandoned their position and the Community by resigning to run for the SC. Because I donât feel an active member should be allowed to run for a higher position, they should resign in order to campaign so their focus isnât shifted.
I, too, recognize the difficulties. And I would have respected his decision a lot more if he kept everything exactly the same but just allowed the community the right to a discussion before voting and allowed those who staked their SAND the opportunity to remove their SAND from staking in order to have their rightful VP.
Delay it by 2 weeks to allow for discussions. But he made it very clear that he would not allow us to discuss anything before voting and in the same tweet let it be known that if we voted against the DAO that he wanted then we would be on our own to start from scratch creating a brand new DAO without his help.
And the only other point I want to make on your statement is that the next SC election happens in just under a year. Their first term ends at the end of this year. But I am curious how you would propose we enact this since it would require 1-2 SC members to resign. Given, as you point out, they have little to no time requirement already and never interact with the community, what would make them want to resign from the money and power they currently hold that requires no work from them? Thatâs my concern with that idea. The only responsibility they currently hold is for 3 of the 5 to vote.
And unless I missed it, we donât know how each individual on the SC votes for their recommendation (or if they even voted), do we?
I suggest adding a clause to allow CC members to be elected and then promoted to SC in the next SC election. That way, any individual that gets elected during SC elections automatically transits. Remaining CC members can serve out their term, with 2 seats available for election of new members into CC.
I do like that idea but the current proposal calls for 1 month notification because that is how long they feel they need to replace them. Something Iâm not too sure of being accurate given the CC has no actual power, but that is what the Admin team feels is needed. But I just donât see how it would work given it would require current SC members to resign.
Also, if the CC is a stepping stone to the SC then I donât think DAO Delegates, DAO Ambassadors, TSB Staff, etc should be restricted from running for the Community Council as that would hurt their chances of getting on the SC. TSB Staff is clearly allowed to be on the SC and that is who holds the actual power so the CC should have the same restrictions (or lack there of) as the SC.
Since my goal is for the Community to have an actual voice and power in the DAO, that is why I am opposed to this proposal and would rather ignore it completely and just see a Community member on the Special Council by creating a 6th and even 7th seat. Though I think we all know what I really want, for the entire Special Council to resign and return the money and run an actual campaign as to why they feel they should be on the Special Council as opposed to just thanking the DAO for the position before a vote even took place (not a single one campaign, every single one thanked the DAO for being accepted to that position before any votes ever took place, which is why I know for a fact that the initial vote was a sham).
First
1(or 2) seat election for promotion of CC members to SC for term starting May 2026.
Next
3(or 4) seat election for SC council held AFTER that.
Once the new 5 member SC council is formed, there are 3 ways the CC can proceed:
Either
1(or 2) seat election for CC member. Advantage is that the newly elected CC members will have mentors, being the existing CC members as well as the promoted members.
Or
Allow the remaining CC members to serve out their term.
Or
If a successful promotion is held, the CC is immediately dissolved and new elections are held for CC.
To further my reasoning, some of the most qualified voices for the community are in fact TSB Staff like Alex, Panda, Scott, and Amy. And the current Ambassadors who are contracted staff workers of the DAO are the closest to the community since the interact with the community every day. Delegates the same, though not staff.
If the CC is really about just being a voice for the community, then there should be nothing that is closed door so we can see what they are saying and it should be anyone actually connected to the community. The only conflict concerns that would be there would be what is said behind closed doors, as the SIP calls for. Eliminate closed doors, eliminate the concern of conflict.
Where are you seeing May 2026? I did step away for a while, but last I knew of is what is currently in the DAO Constitution:
Except for the initial members of the Special Council, whose term shall
commence upon approval of the first SIP for The Sandbox DAO and will
end December 31, 2025, each member of the Special Council shall
serve a term of one year, unless earlier removed as provided for below.
Members may be re-elected but may not serve more than 3
consecutive terms.
Given the rate that elected officials are re-elected to their positions of power, if all 5 wanted to run again they would very likely be re-elected.
But I wouldnât be opposed to amending the Constitution and first SIPs to make it so that they are limited to only 3 returning. I would also be okay if the limit was 3 terms total. As it currently is they can serve 3 years, take a year off, serve another 3 years. But I also wouldnât be opposed to no term limits if the leaders truly were doing what they promised. That is something I would need to think more about and would have been wonderful to have a discussion regarding before we were forced to vote on it.
Yes in order to run it the way I suggested, its to do the tedious work of amending the constitution. This approach ensures at least 1 person from CC gets placed into SC.
The other is to allow CC members to run for SC elections, and if successful, that they relinquish their role in CC upon being elected. This is an easier route since all we need to do to define it in the upcoming CC election criteria. But it wonât guarantee a seat on SC, which means if youâre right and the same members get re-elected, we are back to square one.
Thatâs a good idea. I didnât think of that one. What do you think about this
If a currently elected CC member runs for Special Council, they are not required to resign from the CC first. A CC member is afforded the same Eligibility Grace Period as written under the Nomination Period section. Follow the Process for Resignation.
I also inserted an eligibility grace period, hereâs my working language
Eligibility Grace Period: Those who are currently serving in a role named in the Eligibility Check may self-nominate, if, and only if, they disclose their current role and commit to resigning from their role no later than 30 days after winning an election seat. If the candidate does not win, they are not required to resign. If the candidate does win but does not resign within 30 days, they forfeit their election seat, and the next runner-up will be chosen.
about the lack of representation in important positions or decision making, not being its focus, but rather an add-on.