No one is saying the admin should overide the DA’s decision. Where is it stated that the DA has the right to cancel a project because of it needed add-ons that were not in the proposed deliverable? - Was there any document signed where this rule is being explicitly stated?
All the adjustment made were all add-on and it was not in our proposed deliverables. When we submitted our final report on August 3rd, there was no issue with our project as we delivered exactly what we put in our deliverable - the domain allocator asked for something extra which wasn’t in our deliverable“A standalone executable file” which we had to work on even though it was never part of of deliverable.
(that’s not even an issue to us since we genuinely want to grow Sandbox regardless of what was our initial deliverables)
Was Animation part of our proposed deliverable? Even though this was not part of our deliverable, we still got it fixed and working now. So please where did we stall or fall short in our proposed deliverable?
Again, was there any ultimatum given to us for this project? If there was ever any reason for “delayed timing” in the grant cycle, - You can clearly see from the thread that it took an average of 2weeks to get a response from the DA.
Again, the DA claim that he can’t review the Milestone 2 & 3 because his work term with the grant has ended. We have tirelessly worked on this project that is widely available for all SandBox creators and beyond. It will be only fair if we are remunerated accordingly.
Please let us judge this matter fairly and also put yourself in our shoes. How does it feel to not receive PAYMENT for a job well done ? Where are the Cancellation rule for project like this? Which of the agreed requirement did we fail to meet? None. So we urge you to pay close attention to this matter and resolve it fairly and transparently without any sentiments.
I find the insistence incredible, despite @Geraldine recapping all the events of this project. The project was on the verge of cancellation 3 times because the tool you developed simply could not be executed.
The delivery on August 2nd did not comply with any of the milestones:
M1: The program was not executable.
M2: It did not have the benchmarks.
M3: It lacked feedback from The Sandbox creators integrating this tool.
What was requested was never additional; your software was not contributing anything and was worsening the voxel art from VoxEdit by removing the animations and making the file heavier. Does it seem logical to be remunerated for a tool that makes voxel art worse?
Technical project reviews take time because testing must be done, development environments configured, and specialists consulted. M1 was reviewed 4 times before being approved, and the other feedback given since August 2nd was not addressed. Considering a management that was excessively tolerant of this many faults to be negligent is, to say the least, arrogant.
This project had more than 3 ultimatums communicated in this forum, plus its cancellation was also public in this forum with just reasons. M2 and M3 were not reviewed because my time as a DA and the program ended, which is a consequence of the project being CANCELED.
Finally, as an act of commitment to the community, I have reviewed the last milestone you uploaded exclusively to provide feedback, since the project is Canceled. Unfortunately, this review found that it worsened things, as it corrupts the GLTF file coming from VoxEdit, leaving it without animations and unusable. This can be seen in the following screenshot:
As I indicated in the cancellation feedback, I do not understand why you are testing with GLTFs from Sketchfab, which are already optimized and ready for export. The tests, as stated in M2 and M3 of this project, should have been done with The Sandbox assets, which have particularities due to the way VoxEdit exports them. This demonstrates a lack of rigor in what the project implied, from the use of The Sandbox tools to your internal testing processes.
In conclusion, it still doesn’t work. Out of respect for our DAO and community, which has followed all protocols rigorously, and as a DA who has helped with everything possible for this project, I hope this is more than enough to stop this discussion, which will lead you nowhere.
You claim what we initally developed could not be executed but we showed you in the call we had back in September how it should be executed and it was not executed because you did not have the updated software and right dependencies. Then you asked us to make it a single command executable file which we worked on even though it wasn’t even part of our deliverable. Please lets try to be transparent.
We find this statement highly misleading and not true.
Why was milestone 1 reviewed 4 time? Milestone 1 was working from the first time we submitted the proposal and you were unable to validate it because you did not have the updated software version and other dependencies. We clearly showed you this in the call we had please for the sake of transparency we urge you to not make false claims.
Who takes account of the late response and feedback which stalled this project to a longer time frame? Again, we gave you the milestones in August and we were only able to be on the same page when we had the call on Seotember 9 - from the call, it worked perfectly and it was apparent that the issue you got were from your end due you not having the right dependencies to run it. You requested for a one line command which would not need you to have dependencies which was what we had to work on even though it was not part of our deliverable.
Everything works 100% correctly. Did you try the latest version of Voxbridge? We would show you that eveything works 100% and we belive that if the SandboxDao is truly a DAO, then let us have other admin and DA validate this. @Cyril@Geraldine@theKuntaMC@shont@KCL@hishmad@meowl@Money@Lanzer@Juampi
For the sake of transparency, we made another comprehensive walk through video that validates that everything works 100% and does not worsen things, neither does it corrupt the GLTF file cominf from VoxEdit.
This report provides a full walk-through and validation of the latest VoxBridge release. The test demonstrates how a VoxEdit asset can be exported, processed, and successfully used inside Unity with all animations and textures preserved.
The video covers the complete workflow, from downloading the build directly from GitHub to final Unity verification.
2. Demonstration Summary
The video walkthrough includes the following steps:
Download from GitHub Release
The latest version of VoxBridge was downloaded directly from the official GitHub releases page.
No manual file modifications or external scripts were used.
Loading and Exporting in VoxEdit
A real VoxEdit asset (downloaded from the VoxEdit marketplace) was opened and reviewed.
The file was exported from VoxEdit as .glb with full animations intact.
Processing through VoxBridge
The exported .glb was placed inside the examples/input directory.
VoxBridge processed the file using its standard route, producing a clean optimized output file.
The result maintained all 181 animations and achieved significant file size reduction.
Unity Import & Validation
The processed model was imported into Unity.
All animations appeared in the Animator list and played correctly.
Textures remained properly mapped and visible on the model.
3. Results
Test Parameter
Result
Animation Count
181 (all retained)
Output Format
.gltf
File Size Reduction
~86% smaller
Unity Compatibility
Fully functional
Texture Status
Correctly preserved (minor visual softening only)
All key objectives, animation preservation, size optimization, and Unity readiness were achieved successfully.
4. Recommendation
Please download and test using the latest VoxBridge release on GitHub to reproduce the same workflow shown in the video. Also download node.js for better performance.
The release already includes the improvements used in this verification test. Note: don’t download from anyother souce aside github.
This demonstration confirms that VoxBridge correctly handles real VoxEdit assets from export to Unity integration. The pipeline is stable, reproducible, and ready for use in production or further testing.
What This Proves:
The concerns are COMPLETELY INVALID:
“Corrupts GLTF files” → Both files work perfectly
“Leaving it unusable” → Both models are fully functional
“Missing animations” → All 181 animations preserved
This is definitive visual proof that VoxBridge processes VoxEdit exports correctly without any corruption or usability issues! Please download and test using the latest VoxBridge release on GitHub to reproduce the same workflow shown in the video. Also download node.js for better performance.
The release already includes the improvements used in this verification test. Note: don’t download from anyother souce aside github.
Regrettably, the program is now closed. The project experienced significant delays in meeting its delivery schedule, and even after multiple extensions, we could not achieve the desired objective.
We believe the Sandbox Dao should indeed be treated as a “DAO”. We have not defaulted in any part of this program. We urge the community to kindly make payment for the work done. The project works 100% and everything is publicly verifiable. If you have any question please feel free to ask.
The program is now officially closed. The project timeline exceeded its delivery deadlines, and despite several opportunities for extension, the required outcomes were not successfully delivered.
We believe the Sandbox Dao should indeed be treated as a “DAO”. We have not defaulted in any part of this program. We urge the community to kindly make payment for the work done. The project works 100% and everything is publicly verifiable. If you have any question please feel free to ask.
While the program has concluded, we were unfortunately unable to meet the project’s original delivery deadlines. Despite granting several extensions, the final outcomes fell short of the anticipated results.
What was the project original deadline? You keep repeating the same thing while it’s evident that we have not trespassed on any rule of the grant. If we have, kindly state them.
We don’t wish to push this any further. If the community check our project and find out that all @yuelwolf claims about it “not working” is correct, then say it! This project works 100% so what is really the issue at this point?
We believe this is a DAO and if we feel helpless in situations like this how well do we portray the concept of a DAO?
We only ask for this situation to looked into and judged without prejudice. The project we built, Voxbridgeworks perfectly well and it has achieved all its objectives of this grant. So why do you choose not to pay us? Why does the whole community choose to be silent?
Please, before you reply to this comment, make sure you thoroughly read through our previous messages in this thread.
The DAO community democratically elected Domain Allocators to oversee and distribute for projects during the 4 months of the pilot program.
At this point, any admin effort to undermine the decisions of the DA would be unfair.
In this instance, the DA chose not to validate M2 and M3.
So, while the admin team (and surely most of the community) can understand your frustration and appreciate the work you’ve done, we cannot undermine the decision of the DA.
This situation has been reviewed in detail.
There is no prejudice applied from any party involved.
The Domain Allocator determines if an SDGP project meets the agreed upon criteria. At this point, even if everything does work perfectly now (which the DA says it does it not), the SDGP pilot program has ended and it’s over 6 weeks past the deadline.
The TIMELINE for this situation is documented HERE. Multiple extensions were given by the DA, but unfortunately the corrections were not made in time (as the SDGP pilot ended August 30th).
This is far from an ideal outcome for anyone involved, but it is an important reminder for us all to be vigilant of deadlines.
