Your Voting Power (VP) is calculated based on a tailored voting strategy, which considers several key factors
Voting rights are based on the amount of SAND and/or LAND on Ethereum and/or Polygon Network.
We convert your LAND to SAND equivalent: 1 LAND = 4500 SAND → n LAND = n x 4500 SAND
Please note that while we are actively working to include additional factors like ASSET and Collection ownership and to refine the consideration for LAND (including traits like neighborhood and premium), these are not yet incorporated into the voting power calculation.
Please mention Staked SAND as well as that is a very important issue to many people in the community. Even though those of us in the US and UK aren’t able to stake, many in the community outside of those regions are able to and should have their VP properly allocated.
When the time comes, I hope the team will put together a proposal regarding giving it an extra weight as well. Personally I think those who support the project through staking should be weighed higher and would love to see what the rest of the community thinks as well.
When ASSETs (and hopefully Avatars) are considered for the future, I would also vote to give those an extra weight as well considering those are people who invested in the tokenomics of the project. But I fully understand that those will need to be debated internally before being presented to the community since factors such as minting and buying on secondary at lower prices should be considered. One other important consideration the team needs to account for is all of the creators who were able to mint tens of thousands of copies before the marketplace was opened to everyone.
Hi @KandidlyKristen, we are currently working on a feasibility study to take into account Staked SAND, and then will post in the forum a proposal draft to be submitted to the community.
Hi @Geraldine, this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. When not a single person in the forum has said that they don’t want $SAND owners who staked their $SAND (in order to support The Sandbox and according to the Whitepaper) to get VP for their investment, why would we need a a SIP to give them that right?
The whitepaper outlined that the DAO would be for SAND, not even LAND Owners, yet a SIP wasn’t needed to give LAND Owners VP, which was something that people posted they didn’t want because it would allow whales to easily control the narrative.
The whitepaper even went as far as to say this:
“2021
● Foundation – Launch of the Foundation DAO with SAND staking for voting on Creators Fund management”
But now at this point the only way to let those who staked in the project get their VP is by delaying the process an extra month with discussions and voting?
I understand there is some debate as to whether $SAND Staking should allow for a higher weighted VP, but no one has said they shouldn’t have any VP.
Given we are paying the Special Council 110,000 $SAND a year per person for two years in their first term (without even so much as a discussion being allowed) to ensure the SIPs align with the Community’s Interests, I would love to hear from them as to why they feel we should consider going against the Whitepaper and the Community’s Interests and allowing for a 1:1 VP as soon as possible.
Oh, wait. We did hear from them directly in the AMA when Seb said we should have a SIP and the others remained silent…
My two cents here. In my opinion, allowing Assets and Avatar voting for DAO seems like a good idea, but it is NOT. In reality, it makes the voting power inflationary at the whim of minting at any time. This wouldn’t be beneficial for investors and the community. Focus on rarity and scarcity, strengthening SAND and LAND should be the priority. Besides making it easier to understand the voting powers over the years.
Currently, ASSETs on ETH are capped and no longer used, hence there’s limited inflation from that, if at all
ASSETS on Poly burn catalysts which are also limited in supply.
My take is that as long as proper calculations are done in terms of the % of total VP allocated to ASSETs(ETH/POLY) are done properly, it shouldn’t be an issue.
As for AVATARS, I think its fine as well, perhaps in future when people can create their own collections, should it be tied to catalysts, it shouldn’t be a huge issue on inflation.
I understand people feel that way and believe that is something that should be up for a discussion and SIP, which is why I mentioned vote for it (and even included a line about issues relating to minting as well as buying on secondary at lower prices to boost VP artificially).
But the main part of that first post was about giving people who stake SAND their rightful VP.
Which is something that The Sandbox DAO and Seb said that some members of the community don’t want people who stake SAND to have any VP. Something that was specifically part of the Whitepaper.
The Whitepaper never said anything about LAND Owners having VP and there has been feedback against that from the community, yet that was allowed without a SIP. But no one has posted anything about not letting those who stake SAND have VP and The Sandbox DAO and Council both claim that the community doesn’t want it so it needs a SIP.
ASSETs and Avatars will have their time for further debate, my mind right now is set on figuring out why The Sandbox DAO and Seb would lie to the community about all the feedback from people saying those who stake SAND don’t deserve VP. And why did the rest of the Special Council (the ones who actually showed up for the AMA) not speak up about it being an incorrect statement. Is it a blatant lie or is it just that the Council we are going to pay 110,000 SAND a year per member for 2 years to stand up for the Community’s Interests is so far out of touch with the Community’s Interests on this one that they don’t even know that people aren’t saying that?
So I understand your feelings, but I will wait to address them fully when there is a proposal regarding that because I am just so ashamed with The Sandbox DAO and the Special Council right now that I can’t even fully focus on that <3
Thank you for the response.
I’m always open to thinking differently.
How many NFTs Assets in ETH do we have? 1M?
What you mean? Isn’t it The Sandbox that freely decides how many catalysts they are going to mint and distribute?
Yes. if TSB fixed percentage of voting power to the Assets/Avatars, this would indeed solve the inflationary issue. This would result in a dilution of voting power over time for Assets/Avatars, but the inflationary situation would be resolved.
I understand the context better now. Thanks for clarifying.
I don’t have that much familiarity with the proposals in the whitepaper, staking, and other points raised, but let me understand better.
Are you proposing to earn retroactive VP based on the amount of SAND staked over time, for all these years? What would this be called? “VP Stake Points”?
My original statement was that since Geraldine mentioned ASSET and Collection ownership in the original post about “Understanding your Voting Power (VP)” then a comment about SAND Staking should have been mentioned as well.
My updated comment is that The Sandbox DAO and the Special Council should not have lied to the listeners when they said there are community members who don’t want people who chose to support the project by putting their SAND they purchased or earned into the Staking pool to have any VP.
They think it needs a SIP which would mean a two week discussion and a two week vote before having a chance at being implemented. Yet, no one has said those people don’t deserve any VP. Also, that is something that was stated as being used for voting in The Sandbox Whitepaper so it should have been expected as happening.
To further add to my point, since they automatically gave LAND Owners VP when the Whitepaper did not include that and there was Community Feedback against it (not mine, but it came up in Discord), and they did that without a SIP, then there is absolutely no reason to require one for SAND Staked in TSB’s Staking Pools.
As of right now, I would be happy if SAND Staked was a 1:1 for SAND held. In the future I would like to see a proposal and discussion regarding giving it a higher weight. But there is no reason why it shouldn’t give at least a 1:1 VP without a SIP.
They mentioned technical difficulties in the AMA regarding implementing it and that is completely fine (but should have been figured out before rushing us into this horrible DAO they have offered us). But when they said members of the community don’t want it and therefore it needs to go through a SIP process, I lost all respect for the DAO and Special Council. Because that is either a blatant lie, or just shows how out of touch they are with the Community’s Interests they are paid to ensure SIPs align with.
All these are ballparks but its to reflect the rarity of individual cats
I believe there are limited supply to cats? or can they add more at their whim?
Yes definitely, in the short term I think its reasonable to accept that there’s dilution as more assets are included in VP calculations to be inclusive of everyone who participates in the ecosystem.
No, there is no cost. But they only count once per SIP. So they are used to calculate the VP for each SIP when the snapshot is taken and the VP is essentially consumed when you vote. But no SAND or LAND is actually removed from your wallet.