I like the diversity piece of the proposal with the different houses. Difficulty would be to define the houses but I do not think it will an issue to have people running in several houses as they have several hats but might be a long shot to align all of that.
Which is leading me to the question about the timing that we want to apply to this SIP.
Do we want a short term fix to bring community voice with the DAO admin team now; and maybe keep it simple ie: 5 people, no specific house, no payment, mandate until end of 2025 like SC, lowering the bar of workload due to no payment. Knowing that is not the ideal set-up?
Or take more time trying to make it better, aligning houses, debating if it should be paid or not, duration with maybe longer mandate.
Seeing some strong discussion here about SC that would neeed to be cleared before moving forward and with my fresh eyes of new engaged member that feels a bit tired about those discussions about the past (I am sure I am not the only one here), I have the feeling that we should go first with the quick fix, and have a calm discussion about how do we bring a community member into the SC.
Else we will miss all the purpose of the DAO which is debating about MagicPalette like topic, having more node in the avatars, introducing land renting, connecting builders and landowners, finding new ways for builders or creators to monetize their work⌠and other important topics.
So are you saying we were lied to in the DAO Ambassador SIP, DAO Forum and DAO AMA then?
They made it very clear in here and on the AMA that they would allow the current CM team that managed the old TSB Ambassador program to manage the DAO Ambassador program and that they would do work on behalf of the DAO.
Thatâs not ZERO influence.
As I stated before, very rarely do the owners providing the money do the day to day management of the lowest level employees, contracted for full time. As Amit pointed out, The DAO will be the source of support but the active management will be TSB.
Yes, since you joined discussions have been allowed.
Since everything was set in stone that discussions would be required, that is not a surprise to me.
Me: What we want is a discussion before being forced to vote on these SIPs.
The Intern: Hopefully Seb will see this and reconsider.
Seb: This is not for me to reconsider, but for the community to vote upon.
So as I keep saying, my stance is firm. It was made very clear that the community did not deserve a voice and any power at all and we are not even allowed to discuss it.
As Iâve been doing since this sham of a DAO took over, I will be on the sidelines watching until something serious needs me to speak up against it.
Like I said, this may have come from the right place but in no way whatsoever gives the community a voice or power that they didnât have before. All this is is to give reports to the DAO Admin team. Reports arenât needed. The opinions have been openly shared in the forums, discord and twitter and the DAO admin team can use their passion to take the time to read them there with needing closed door meetings regarding the community.
I know you want to further your ammunition to attack the DAO butâŚ
NO, you werenât lied to.
It just didnât end up being operationalized the way it was written.
Arenât you an ambassador? Shouldnât you know that?
Has the DAO Admin Team given any directive to you or other ambassadors? No.
Also, your remarks here have nothing to do with constructive conversation about this SIP. Youâre just trying to start fights (again). Please, try to be collaborative. If you have suggestions on how to improve the SIP, theyâre very welcome.
But no one lying to you. No one is manipulating. No one is âtrying to make a fool of you,â as you stated on Discord. Weâre inviting you to participate. Thatâs all.
The DAO Admin team had a chance to prove otherwise. Whether it was that they chose to blatantly lie to the community or that they actively had so little interest in what the community wanted that they couldnât even be bothered to read the forums, they said what they said.
Lies and deceit or a complete lack of interest are not a way of showing interest, whichever it was.
You are absolutely right it should have been different. But that doesnât mean we should just accept it and support it because it claims to be a DAO.
You are not alone is wanting any DAO at all. That was easily predicted when this DAO was forced on us instead of allowing for any input. Seb made it clear, it was this DAO or there would be no DAO at all unless someone else did all of the work. There would be no compromise. There would be no discussion. Until we have someone from the community with actual power and a voice, there is absolutely no reason to trust there will be change.
Given everything is closed door, even though one of those core visions of the DAO is Transparency, publish the voting records and time commitment from each of the Special Council members and provide a SIP recalling the lowest two and replacing them with actual Community members. That would go drastically further than this Community Council idea that requires daily, weekly, bi-weekly and monthly work for free to just submit reports behind Closed Doors.
We asked in the beginning and we were told that information would not be released and was not tracked. But maybe now that you are on the Admin Team you can be that change for the community.
Transparency
Decisions, information, and processes are shared openly and transparently ensuring the community we serve is involved every step of the way.
Not just calling. Also posting the evidence of the lies. Or like I also said, it could have just been a complete lack of interest in what the community was saying. Since everything (since context somehow can not be understood from the conversation that was being had) involving conversations between the DAO Admin team and Special Council relating to these issues is behind closed doors it is tough to know which it was.
Didnât feel the lengthy addition would be needed as simple contextual clues could point to what the word everything in this context meant but apparently I expect too much of people to understand context. Especially given one of my biggest arguments is that we donât need more closed door meetings as outlined in this SIP when we have these forums that can be public to all.
Weâre not behind closed doors right now, are we?
So, maybe the use of the word âeverythingâ is an example of your using false language to make your arguments?
Also, the meetings with the CC have not even been defined. But youâre already sharing misinformation about the meetings being closed door.
You are risking a warning in the Forums here for consistently posting off-topic comments, sharing false information, and making attacks on character instead of arguments for ideas.
I thought I had answered @Lanzer 's question on weekend, but apparently I just imagined it, my bad , but for me 6 months seems better than 1 year.
I think it would be better to have a Community Council (CC) with a 6 month term instead of 2 years. One of the reasons is that it is a volunteer, unpaid position with a lot of work and significant responsibilities, something I still find challenging. However, the main issue is that I donât think there are enough people actively involved in the DAO to sustain this. Maybe @PickaxeMaster would agree with me; most people would think twice before devoting their time and energy to something like this (DAO related), instead of focusing on creating or improving a game, finding bugs or, for gamers, exploring games and earning more SAND. But I could be wrong.
In any case, I think it would be better to have more people rotating through this position. If there are not enough people, perhaps a one year term might be a more workable compromise. Also, holding elections for the CC every 6 months might not be the most efficient approach, but, over time, it might help familiarize the community with this type of process. For example, someone might say, âOh, this is the third time I have voted in a CC election; now I know what I have to do.â This could lead to a more engaged and informed community in the long run. Also if someone wants to be re-elected, thatâs fine with me, I think itâs all up for a vote.
These are actually very good ideas, and I would like to see them implemented, but, however, I wonder if there are enough people actively involved in the DAO to make this work effectively. Additionally, it could end up being even more work for those elected, especially if the responsibilities are divided across multiple Houses.
Maybe some metrics would help us to see how approachable this would be, bearing in mind that 5 CC for 2 years is the most approachable.
I have the title of Ambassador with The Sandbox. I am not a current Ambassador for The Sandbox DAO. In my application (because we had to re-apply to get the contracted employment position with the DAO) I stated I would not work for the DAO but I would continue as I had from the beginning, volunteering my time for the community.
I was never given a contract to even look over, nor am I compensated as a DAO Ambassador.
Some of the lies I already addressed but will repeat again since you seem convinced we were not lied to or deceived:
Cyril telling the community in the AMA that many from the community feel that people who stake should have no VP at all (45:24 into that AMA), Seb seconding that idea and saying it would require a SIP and no other SC members on that AMA correcting them was either a blatant lie or a complete lack of interest in the communityâs interests given the only debate was if those who stake should have more VP than those who just hold.
The lie from the SC that The Sandbox VP would not influence the outcome of SIPs yet when a large number of us united to not vote in order to prevent quorum from being met, TSBâs VP was used to manipulate the outcome of the SIPs.
The lie that DAO Ambassadors would be fairly compensated given they knew what ambassadors were previously being compensated and also knew that the community did not know that because our NDA prevented us from saying anything more than âthere are benefits to being an ambassador.â
"*NO, you werenât lied to.â See above for a couple examples.
And if SIPs are going to be written one way and we are going to vote to implement something as the SIP is proposed, but the execution of the SIP is not going to be implemented the way we voted, then what is even the point of having the SIP in the first place? We gave you what you voted for but âit just didnât end up being operationalized the way it was writtenâ and that you voted on is not a strong argument here.
You are continually trying to make me out to be the bad guy because I wonât blindly follow a DAO and SC that actively worked against the community, and thatâs fine, I can be the bad guy. I have a toddler and deal with that sort of manipulation all the time because I wonât give her exactly what she wants. But me posting the reasons why I do not trust this SIP is not me just trying to start a fight. Itâs listing the reasons for the lack of trust.
would a 1-year term be better than a 2-year term given your arguments here?
there is strong support for 1-year at this point
but if you can get more people on board with 6-month term limits, I think Lanzer and I just really want this to:
a) work effectively (of course, it can be revised after implemented, too)
b) please as many community members as possible
Regarding the different âhousesâ â seems the first comments on @PickaxeMasterâs idea have been positive!! But. weâd need to develop quite a bit more language to build a framework around that idea. That can begin in the discussion here if anyone wants to start fleshing the idea out a bitâŚ
I, too, like these ideas, and I feel this could very easily cover the roles and responsibilities of the Special Council:
âRoles and Responsibilities: The role of the Special Council is to review and
make a recommendation on each SIPâ
Voting & Accountability:
A minimum of 3 members is required to vote on any Special Council
recommendation.
The Special Council recommendation shall be based on the majority
vote of Special Members participating in such vote.
Each Special Council recommendation will be unsigned.
The Special Council may veto a SIP only if at least 3 members vote in
favor of such veto. Any veto must be accompanied by a public
statement of the Special Council explaining the rationale behind the
veto.
Thatâs what we voted on regarding the Responsibilities for the Special Council. That 3 of 5 of them vote. I would also love if this was addressed in a new SIP. The Community Council requirements are a great start to add to the Special Council.
But yes, I would love to see some metrics. We asked in the past and were denied any new metrics for the Special Council so hopefully the new Admin team can help make that happen.
Your posts now have NOTHING to do with the topic of discussion here.
This is not a place for you to vent your frustrations about unrelated matters.
If you make another off-topic post, you will receive a 2-week suspension from the Forum.
Also, speaking as a fellow ambassador of 4 years, you should rethink the way you represent the TSB ecosystem. You do far more damage than you do good. Anyone reading your thoughts about TSB would never want to be involved.
Itâs going for sure to take some heavy work at the beginning, at least until everything is all set up and working properly.
But for the most part, having the community motivated, anything can be built.
As for choosing âHousesâ, they wonât get any benefits from choosing a less contest one, as Houses are just enviroments where members can look and discuss SIPâs specifically towards their own needs.
A Reputation System can be done, where members earn Repuation through their contributions to their respective Houses. Posts and Threads can get âLikesâ similar how it works on the SIP Ideas tab. for Exmple: Get 10 Likes in a Reply, earn 1 Reputation, Create a Thread with 10 Replies, earn 1 reputation - Milestones for members to earn Reputation.
Members with more Reputation, usually tend to have more weight in discussions as theyâve been voted overtime as valuable contributers, this creates value on the long term and the opportunity to new KOLâs to arise.
The reputation could also be useful when electing Representatives of each House, where Member Reputation = Voting Power to elect.
Members wouldnât be able to vote on themsleves and they would only be able to vote on their respective House.
A Member of course would be able to be part of different Houses, for example the Pickaxe Master is a Land Owner, is a Game Creator and is also a VoxEdit Creator, but our Reputation might difer on each of the Houses, depending on our contribution to each House.
6 months to me feels rather optimal, as itâs neither too long or too short. Itâs a position of responsability, that needs time and it can be tiring. Itâs better to have shorter mandates, but with all the members involved highly engaged and motivated.
Members can always be nominated multiple times, if they are being voted to be the representant by their Houses, and if they are willing to accept multiple mandates. It gives enough freedom to Members give how much they want to give, without forcing anyone to work over time or get burned out.
The idea of having Houses, is that each House would perceive whatâs most important for them in the TSB ecosystem, even if the mandates are shorter, the House would be aligned as a whole to their objectives.
As for a Short Term / Long Term solution like @KCL mentioned, itâs a good food for thought, as long itâs all clear and we all know where are headed at, I think any solution can be a good solution.
And itâs like @rocksymiguel said, as a volunteer position, commiting to 1 year is a really long time, it can scare off some members that would be able to dedicate for a shorter period of time. Shorter mandates also give more opportunities to different members to represent the Community, which diversity is a good thing, having more voices heard. This could stimulate more engagement towards the global community to the DAO.
Also, if something like this was to be built, it would have to be with the Long Term vision in mind, it would allow the DAO foundation to grow and have a more decentralized approach towards SIPâs, while inviting newcomers to join the DAO ecosystem.
Iâd see as revising what the Special Council responsabilities are, what the DAO Team and Admins are doing, feels like what should be the SC role should be doing.
As for their pay, Iâd distribute it to towards a Reputation system, where everyone involved in the DAO would be compensated, while the most dedicated members would benefit more from being active, thoughful and participative. The more a member works, spends time and contributes to the DAO, the more valueable that member will be to the community. Feels like a win-win situation for contributors and the DAO.
Reputation Points could be earned from many different cases of being active in the DAO. For example, even voting should give 1 Reputation.
My bad on the calculations of the SC members @theKuntaMC, I was looking at SIP 1 to see the SC and there were 7 names there.
Whatever would be the shape, a Decentralized Autonomous Organization is not a simple organism or democracy, itâs rather new, itâs still discovering itself.
In my opinion, it should have mechanisms to have the larger amount of people included and represented.
Even tho these ideas feel rather complex, lenghty and tiresome to implement, they come from a place where it wants to see the Community to have responsabilities and a voice on a User-Generated-Platform.
, but for me 6 months seems better than 1 year.