Hello everyone.
This is Zandale podcast number 23.
As you can see, Joseph is here with me today and we are going over kind of a nebulous subject
that has started since the Tao was introduced.
And basically what we're after here are some things started emerging as many of us started
interacting with the Tao and a lot of it was based on based on how we are to think about
the money being spent and it the latest instance the flashpoint of that happening was the ambassador
program.
So out of that came some situations slash scenarios that I really felt the need to do
a podcast about and who better to do it with than big brain Joseph who's been in the industry
for quite so long.
Hey Mark, what's up?
Congratulations again on their sit that just passed.
Mark Baggo in the chat who is a Sandbox Academy in the Philippines.
Really looking forward to doing some follow up podcasts with you as we go through that.
But today is going to be about the house rules.
More of an intellectual thought exercise and I'm looking forward to it.
I'm a little bit nervous about it because there are some touchy subjects that we can
that we may or may not be able to engage in because of just the way the Tao is unfolding
and all of the background behind it.
So with that we'll move on to scope of the talk.
So today is about discussion.
Joseph and I we became prepared for questions and stuff like that and an exploration of
the idea for how we approach the money, the sand that Tao has to spend.
Some questions that came about, the community asked that I don't feel like got a good answer
that isn't obvious in the Constitution and all the different AMAs that I've heard so
far.
I'm not sure how to think about it.
So that's basically what this is about.
Joseph and I do not represent the sandbox game or the sandbox foundation.
And again the sandbox foundation is the Tao.
We are not your financial or legal advisors and nothing we say is to be taken as such.
Scoreboard.
Yeah, yeah.
Scoreboard, so as I mentioned, SIP number 11 and 12 had just passed.
One being Sandbox Academy in the Philippines and the other being the Sandbox Ambassador
Program.
Both passed because the sandbox applied its 27 million voting power to it.
It was at 60% and 40% quorum respectively and then within the final hour, Sandbox applied
its voting power, pushed it above the quorum that was needed to make it pass.
But both of them had yes votes that were, both of them had yeses before the quote, Sandbox
applied its voting and Sandbox did it in abstention.
So they abstained.
So they kept the voting yes and no, the same ratio and that's what propelled it forward.
That brings the 13 SIPs closed.
There are two that are in draft on the forums.
One is mine.
My first SIP was just Windows resizing and resolution options for the creators mostly
so that we can do VoxEdit and Game Maker and all that stuff side by side on a monitor.
And then the other one is Metaverse and Disability by Meta Pura, Italian based studio and trying
to get them on podcasts as well.
SIP 13, NFT Evolution, which is crafting NFT drops by Crypto Diplo.
We'll have that later today.
And the checkbook.
So with the recent passages of the SIPs, we're now at 15% of the DAO having been spent 2.3
million sand out of 15.5 million budget.
And DAObased.ai added this one to assistance last we talked.
It's got some metrics on the 211,000 token holders in the Sandbox, 1800 voters, voting
wallets and of that 6,777 votes have been cast.
So pretty cool.
Pretty cool numbers.
Starting to pull together some data, some earned value metrics out of this stuff now.
And so let's get to introductions.
Joseph, remind us who you are and why the big brain.
Sure.
Good morning, afternoon, evening, everybody.
Hey, my name is Joseph, the Vision X Matting.
I have been in the Sandbox ecosystem for now over four, coming up on four.
It's really close to four years.
Worked internally as staff, worked externally on a company called the Council where we do
quality assurance testing for the games or experiences that release in seasonal content
or mid-season content for the Sandbox game.
And I was, when working with the social media team as part of a community management, the
guy pretty much that you would go to if you had questions about the white paper or if
you had questions about something that happened on chain with your transaction, you know,
if you didn't understand why didn't this blockchain thing work?
Why did it work?
Where's my money?
Right.
People would come to me for that.
So as you can see, Joseph has been around for a long, long time.
And one of the people he was heavily involved, as he mentioned briefly there, involved with
the white paper and token launch on Binance.
So if there's anyone who has a solid foundation of where we have been, how we used to think
of tokenomics around all of this and someone who can translate that into today in the DAO,
how it's now we're using Sand as part of tokenomics?
And then tying that in with what we're seeing with the SIPs that are being passed and the
comments that are surrounding it, both from the DAO team, the SIP authors and the community.
So that's, that's one of the main reasons why he came first to mind for me at least.
And I'm Lancer.
So I'm the podcast host.
I'm a landowner, published two experiences through MetaWorlds.
And I have a contract negotiation background, a contract writing, proposal writing background,
which is why you see that I have five SIPs that I've already submitted.
Because I do this professionally and I love business, community and gaming.
And the DAO is the intersection of all three.
So that's why I've been pushing out so many episodes because this is just a really interesting
topic and how the politics of real life play into digital currency and gaming and community
all at the same time.
So here we are.
So the discussion.
So today's kind of separate into three case studies, three things that cropped up in the
past month that to me brought about this question mark for how the DAO, how should we approach
the DAO spending its money?
Case study number one was the newly relaunched ambassador program.
There were some discussions around there that we'll get into first on comments made by the
SIP author, which was the sandbox marketing team we found out, comments made by the DAO
administrator during the AMA, comments made by Seb, COO and co-founder of sandbox.
And then how that the comments that the SIP itself requested for and what is their contradiction
in the way we in the theoretical approach.
That's what we want to get into first.
The other two case study, the crafters UDC creator SIP.
It was a draft SIP, so it didn't go to public comment yet, but there were some interesting
intersections and correlations that Cyril's response gave that I think play into this
discussion.
Case study C is the SIP 10, the blockchain events that did not pass.
So it failed to meet quorum, but that would have funded 2024 conferences and a number
of studios and individuals attending on the sandbox's behalf and in some cases promoting
or not the sandbox DAO.
And that promoting or not really is what thrust it into it being a case study here.
Because as you've read the SIP, it did not talk about promoting the DAO.
And then in my Sandow podcast 11 with chips who represented the authors for that SIP,
he in midstream said, well, we can, if we're getting funded by the DAO, I think I guess
we can do that and do posters and all sorts of stuff to onboard people to the doubt self.
And that I was just as surprised, I think as he was when he asked me, well, what do
you think?
How can I make it better?
And so that brings it into here.
And then we'll get to the very end question, I think, which is a smoking gun is, and we
might answer by the time we even get to it.
Should people who get the money, who get money from the DAO be allowed to answer to the sandbox
instead of the DAO?
And I mean that exclusively.
So probably hit that first.
Before we start, Joseph, what do you think?
What's on your mind?
How do you, how would you like to go?
Well, I love first of all, the conversation that's happening because I think all of these
topics really sort of flow into each other and they help both the community and the sandbox
better understand what the DAO needs to succeed.
So one of the targets that the DAO has had recently is that they want to make sure that
the, not only can we reach a quorum on things without the sandbox intervening, but also
that the quorum can be really a secondary thought.
Like there should be so many voters with lands, with sand, that these topics, regardless of
what they are, have enough engagement to just pass or fail.
They shouldn't need, you know, they shouldn't need something like what we saw recently where
the sandbox comes in, puts in an abstain vote just to push it over the quorum limit.
It just shouldn't be, you know, a thing.
I think all of this conversation that we're about to have today leans to that, where either
the community may become disillusioned by this mix in communication, this uncertainty
of these decision-makings, or there will be certainty that is given by the way that this
is working.
And that certainty could come in the part of the sandbox game, it could come on part
of the administration over the DAO, it could come on part of the community itself, right?
But anyway, I think what's going on right now is, and I'm going to hit on some of these
topics more from my understanding, is going to be evident based on the way that this system
was built.
And you know, this is a difficult thing to do, to build a DAO, to make this process get
kickstarted.
It's also a difficult thing to do to understand how this was always, again, in the plan.
I mentioned this last time I was on the show.
But also, how do we transition from a centralized building structure to a decentralized building
structure?
Because that's really what you're going to see in a decentralized platform over time.
Especially, again, as we get to the end of that roadmap for the sandbox game, it should
be assumed that the community would pick up and run with this product while there are
still some staff that must exist to manage the infrastructure.
So talking about what happens today is talking about that balance between that centralized
infrastructure and the decentralized voting and implementation mechanisms.
That's interesting you say that.
I don't think I really connected that piece about the quorum and how we reach a point
where it's near, we're only talking about pass or fail and not whether or not quorum
is reached.
And tying that to the certainty that the community needs to be able to participate in that sort
of thing.
Yes.
And all of this, by the way, this is me approaching it from, I don't know the answer.
I'm trying to figure out how where I stand on this.
I just know that there's something unsettling about what it is I'm seeing.
I want to reach a point to where I can articulate what that uneasy feeling is.
And so this is this sort of stuff is helping me get there in real time.
I'm at the point where I see it.
I see what I think is a contradiction, but I don't have enough information, enough data
points to be convinced of that.
Maybe I just I don't understand because I've only been in the Dow for May 28th when it
was announced.
And I'm like, what in the world is a Dow?
And so this begins my journey.
So I'm in full sponge learning mode, applying all of the business, entrepreneurial product
management, program management, contract writing, negotiation acumen that I have in the professional
side of the house to make sense of these very confusing, almost like cross purposes in the
way people talk.
And I'm not sure.
I'm not sure what to make of it.
So I'm hoping that we can excavate this and explore this through just the conversation
of what is it that I'm seeing when I see this person say a this person says B and this person
says C and yet we're all supposed to come to a resolution question mark.
Yeah.
Well, yeah.
I mean, just to touch on that really quickly.
You're also going to never really be able to see the full conversation in a centralized
business infrastructure because those folks, including myself, are under non disclosure
agreement for certain acts and actions.
So if you propose tomorrow, hey, we need to have season six of the data or whatever.
You know what I mean?
Like this needs to happen.
There's going to everybody would just go, oh, I don't know.
That's crazy because there's there's no way to say that is or it is not going to happen
because of that that restriction from the non disclosure agreement.
And then there's definitely going to be one or two people in the company that are going
like, you know what I mean?
Like it's just it doesn't really matter what the topic is.
There's always a few of those.
You know, if you talk about like, oh, here's some changes that we need to make the box
at it, you may.
And again, I don't know the details of the proposal or the details of the team working
on the box and any of that sort of thing at the moment.
But your pitch, right?
You've got your proposal up there to change the size of the window that may already have
been being done.
And then you go and you do all this proposal and you put it up there and they go, yeah,
you're like, we don't need that because we're already doing it.
Just that makes sense.
You know, that it won't be able to talk about it out loud.
Yeah.
They're part of their feedback was that this is some of this is already in the backlog.
I think some of it wasn't until I proposed that SIP and the product team saw.
But I don't know for certain.
They said, so it's the backlog.
And I'm like, right.
Well, part of the SIP is for it to be done with the next two releases rather than 2025
because I've been waiting on resolution options and window resizing since 2021.
So right.
Yeah.
And there's there's not like.
I mean, there are some light technical restrictions to that.
But really, like, you know, changing that window frame is like just making it have a
responsive scene instead of a static scene based on percentages of your screen or what
pixels.
Yeah.
You know.
Yeah.
So for what it's worth, that's up there now.
But I'll have to interview myself or something here in the next week or two.
Yeah.
So I'm in full sponge mode, wanting to understand the full environment that appears to be in
conflict or contradicting itself with no clear resolution or academic approach.
So I'm going to go ahead and start with the first one.
So case study number one, case study A, relaunching the ambassador program.
So here's the setup in the forum discussion with the TSB team, the ambassadors, all my
friends responded back to my questions that the ambassadors will have a contractual agreement
with the sandbox, that contract will auto renew on a monthly basis.
And then this is quoting, we may leverage ambassadors to distribute information for
a launch, support a partnership launch, promote a SIP, etc.
Now that was later on clarified to the AMA.
And at the AMA on 30 August, so that was after this message was given to me by all my friends
and on the forums, Amit, is it Amit or Amit?
Amit.
Okay.
I've been calling him Amit.
Apologies, Amit.
So at 30 minutes in, Amit said, the sandboxes is seen ambassador program has been managed
by the sandboxes own community management team.
And this will remain the case.
The Dow won't be the active managers of the TSB ambassador program.
It will be the source of support.
Any money.
The actual management will remain with the community team of which the existing ambassadors
are mentioned Panda Pops and others.
And also Joseph raised his hand there.
Cyril then said after that, oh, go ahead.
Oh, sorry, I was actually waving at the chat.
Okay.
Cyril, Cyril then said, a few minutes later, there's no such thing as reporting to the
Dallas community because the Dow community and the sandbox community is the same thing.
And thus starts, hey, Pepe, and thus starts my confusion into all of this.
You've got, I underlined the portions, which were what seemed to be the contradiction.
Yep.
The ambassadors say there's a contractual agreement.
That contract will renew.
Then they say, we're going to leverage the ambassadors to distribute information.
That will be part of the communication channels.
Then during the AMA, Amit says, this will remain the case that the sandbox team will
be managing the ambassador program through the community management team.
Then he says, this, it'll be, the Dow will be the source of support, meaning funding
it.
And then Cyril says, because the Dow community and the sandbox community is the same thing,
there's no need to ask the question about whether or not the Dow reports to, or whether
or not the ambassador program reports to the Dow because it's all the same community.
Yeah.
Okay.
Let's start off with the first basic fact.
Sandbox foundation and the sandbox game company are two separate legal entities.
All right.
That is true.
So that is the A number one where I start off with all this.
Okay.
Joseph, what do you think?
Okay.
One of the many roles when I was in the community management team at the sandbox game officially,
I was the lead ambassador, which means that I was the person who helped decide how ambassadors
got paid in the current existing payment structure.
Okay.
Including how much they got paid for each function that they may do while an ambassador.
Some of that pay includes the work that they do answering support questions on discord,
or once upon a time, it used to include a very small amount of money for like tweeting
about the sandbox game, or it may include creating assets, art designs for the sandbox
game, many other factors.
And they all had their own different individual values, which were meant to respect the time
of the ambassador.
An ambassador was chosen, not through an interview process, but by way of their efforts that
they had put in to the community already.
Right.
So everybody who had become an ambassador was someone who was already just passionate
about the sandbox game in the chat or doing something that kept people engaged and educated
in what we were doing and where we were going.
Right.
And some of those folks have been here for years.
So to the extent that the ambassadors will remain the case, right.
You wrote that underline remain the case that they are managed by the community management
team.
It is mostly less so managed and more so informed.
So, let's say everyone who is in the ambassadorship currently is under a not disclosure agreement
as well.
For the extent that they will receive announcements for hours, maybe a day, whatever before they're
going to go live to the community.
And then they can help be educated and inform the community better.
Be support for people.
And as ambassadors, we are not, I'm still currently an ambassador, we are not expected
to necessarily be having rainbows come out of our bums about the sandbox game.
You can be real a little bit, but you also always have to be respectful of the people,
the platform, you know, all of that sort of stuff.
The staff, the community.
So you know, when people were outright telling me that I needed to die, and I'm not kidding,
they would be banned and then come back and it's the whole thing.
Right.
They make it a big deal.
And so sometimes people, you know, obviously there have been certain rules that have been
set and whatever.
Anyway, the the Dow won't be the active managers of the ambassador program because the Dow
is sort of going to be subcontracting the ambassadorship to that.
It's interesting though that you mentioned, right, that these two things aren't the same
because on the one hand, the entire Dow has been funded by the sandbox game.
Sure.
It is its own established legal entity, however, and if that Dow is hiring the ambassadors
contractually and it'd be interesting to see what the paperwork is like, then that will
be the thing that tells you ipso facto, they definitely are or are not hired by the sandbox
or they are hired by the Dow.
So at the moment, ambassadors have a sort of a handshake agreement.
Basically like I don't know an ambassador that's contract hasn't sort of expired and
done exactly what they're talking about here, where it's month to month in this in this
proposal.
However, in the new proposal, I also don't know an ambassador, at least a passionate
one that isn't taking a significant pay decrease by this, right?
Like ambassadors aren't expected for this to be their job, but they're paid for their
time if that makes sense.
Yeah, that makes sense.
And so a lot of the ambassadors, a lot of the direction of the sandbox game is to be
centered English first focus.
Like you must, everyone must speak it as their second language at least.
And some ambassadors managed specific countries chat channels because they're the only one
that speaks Italian or whatever it is.
But the difference is pretty dramatic in terms of what they may potentially be paid.
If an ambassador is putting in, you know, 40 hours a week, that sort of thing, is they
can reach a maximum cap of pay.
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say exactly what that is.
It's not that much.
It's certainly not enough where I could quit working, you know what I mean?
Like it's just a thank you that goes out there.
However, 400,000 sand.
That's for the rest of this year, assuming it started September 1st, which it didn't
for the rest of this year wouldn't have been enough to reach what they were doing for those
hardcore dedicated ambassador.
And the other half of the way that it's written all of 2025 is another 400k.
So then it gets cut another it cuts down to a quarter of what was already a cut down.
So I think what will probably happen if and it sort of has already I'm allowed to say
I'm not going to specify who, why, where some of you may know is that some of the ambassadors
that we already know may stop doing it because they just, you know, what's the income versus
the level of harassment that you take as a community facing ambassador who's handling
all of the trouble.
I'll put it that way.
If you like when I way back in the day when we did the walking dead land sale and it broke
and they had like 1200 people in the chat and since this has been deleted off the VOD
on YouTube, so you can't really find it.
I had like 1200 people in the chat just literally going it's broken.
Why is it broken?
I'm trying to buy this now.
I want this land and they were hype and it was a stressful day, you know, and when you
get those moments where the sandbox company, not the Dow, are frustrated or frustrating
the community rather with a decision that they may make and this happens, whatever,
you know, you talk about it, you work through it and you move on.
We fix the problem, right?
That's what the community management should do.
But if I'm doing that for $2 an hour, I'm out.
You know what I mean?
I can go get yelled at by somebody.
Exactly.
Like it's just not worth getting, it's not worth the stress on my life.
Now say the same thing to somebody who works in Argentina, in the Philippines, you know
what I mean?
Where that dollar goes a lot further.
Maybe it is.
Maybe it's worth it to them.
And so the turnaround is there.
But the Dow funding this is interesting to me because it's really just the sandbox dipping
into the money that it just gave to the Dow when the sandbox could be and already does
and could continue to fund it.
So the.
And maybe there's a reason for that.
If we don't think about just today.
If we think about how this translates to December 25, I assume that's going to be the end of
the roadmap for the sandbox.
Maybe it's been stretched by additional funding.
If it's December of 2025.
I don't think I understand that.
Say that again.
About 2025.
OK, so.
Roughly, this is my estimation.
I know I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but the original white paper came
out in August of 2020 and it had a five year roadmap.
So the five year roadmap was supposed to have all of these features will be done within five
years and it is sufficiently decentralized in the hands of the community.
All the lands, all the sands, you know.
To this point, you can see on the map at sandbox.game that not all the lands have been sold.
But there is a whole bunch of it that has been sold.
So do they keep up with that schedule?
Do they sell out all those lands before the end of 2025?
If they do, then you'd be more decentralized and more prepared for this Dow because landowners
have a really strong voting percentage.
You would probably have more engaged people who can help keep the Dow, you know, turning.
And then the question is, at that point, when you talk about decentralization, if they do
exactly what they said they were going to do, then they turn the keys over to the Dow
operationally, and the people start making decisions with where the roadmap goes.
Right?
Does that happen?
That's the transition that we're in and probably the confusion that's happening right now with
things like that.
So the ambassadors at that point would be something that could be a SIP, where you would
say, I propose that we reelect ambassadors.
And maybe your SIP says we fire everybody.
Maybe your SIP says we keep these 10 people because we like those ambassadors.
Maybe your SIP says we just add 10 more ambassadors.
And you know, the community would potentially be in control of it if the Dow is funding
the ambassadorship, potentially.
But you'd have to pitch a SIP and get it up there for people to be there.
And eventually, if the sandbox isn't funding the community management, then the ambassadors
would be the community manager because it gets sufficiently decentralized.
It becomes fully autonomous as a company.
How can I count on that being a positive thing for the Dow?
I'm just going to be total devil's advocate because I need to figure out where the contrast
is here.
So I have to take the extreme position to figure it out.
How can that be beneficial to the Dow if they don't answer to the Dow?
Right.
So when you say answer to the Dow, who do you think that means?
I am.
OK, that's a great question.
We haven't gotten to this point yet, but we're going to.
So I'm thinking an elected council.
So the special council would ideally be that right now.
They were elected, but they were they were elected as part of the Dow was.
So when the reelections occur and then the community managers start taking those roles
on, I imagine them and the advisory board would be who they'd answer to, but only elected
by the Dow community.
So San Fam itself, but not by, say, the president or the secretary of the sandbox game company
filtered down and delegated to the managerial levels.
Yeah.
So I think you're on point, sort of, but not retracing back to the original point of the
special council, because the special council is essentially key turners.
Right.
Like the SIPs come through, the community votes for the SIP.
And then these people say it's good, it's legal.
Great.
You know what I mean?
Go.
According to the original proposal.
Sure.
In that original proposal, we didn't have an understanding of that time that there may
be other middle stages.
But I think, again, this is part of where this conversation and where the direction
of the Dow has to be focused in that if they continue to see middle stages interfere with
SIP directions, then I think you're going to see continued lack of engagement.
And if there isn't engagement, then the people who are in charge of that middle process may
realize that their income that comes through the Dow, their personal wages and such, right,
may not continue.
Because if people aren't engaging with the Dow, then they're probably not going to be
engaging with the sandbox platform.
And if they're not engaged with the platform, the platform can't pay the Dow, if that makes
sense.
Yep.
There's financial incentive for clarity to come.
Right.
And for community to be able to propose, reject, pass, you know, whatever they're going to
do, but allow the process to go through naturally.
And when it comes to the ambassadors, I think to a certain point, I think Cyril is correct
to say that there's no such thing as reporting to the Dow's community.
Because it's interesting because the sandbox, forgive me because I'm literally not on it.
Is there a discord for the sandbox Dow?
No, there's just the Dow forums.
Right.
So with the Dow forums themselves, the only place where people can go to talk is the Dow
forum.
There is a Dow discussion channel inside the sandbox.
Right.
Often, they go there.
And they were just in general chat, which is why it got created.
And so over time, what could possibly happen is as the sandbox is getting sufficiently
decentralized.
And by that, I mean, there's less free fake internet money to go around.
That's a joke, by the way, chat.
Like I have sand, you sand, love sand.
We all have.
You know what I mean?
But I call it fake internet money because that's how I get people who aren't in the
crypto space to understand what that means.
Right.
How do we use it?
How is it, you know, is it tangible?
No, but it's real.
As real as going to your bank and using your debit card.
Anyway.
As that new inflationary monetary supply runs out.
Right.
The new sand that's coming into the ecosystem as part of the plan from the white paper,
as it starts to run out, unless there are other income channels, you know, that five
percent I've mentioned it before in trade, then really you just have to decide operationally
from that centralized side who gets to keep their job.
What's important?
And eventually, if there is not a sustainable flow of centralized money, the people who
get to keep their job are going to be almost nobody.
You know, the tech side on the back end that keeps the servers running and a few operations
people that keep events running will probably be the core and most important thing.
So off peak of nearly 400 employees at the top of last cycle when it was like eight bucks
per sand, you know.
Obviously operationally, things are going to change now.
But eventually, regardless of what the price of sand was.
They were going to have to decentralize because they just couldn't afford to be centralized
anymore unless the flow of trade stays really strong in the marketplace for a really long
time.
And so if you want things to be the way that they've been continuing to develop the way
that they go.
That is us as a community in the dower, otherwise, accepting that they know what they're doing.
They have been doing it right, you know, some people will say they may have been doing it
slowly, but it's irrefutable to say that this is the furthest along that anything that puts
itself in the metaverse group is there's no other platform that can do what the sandbox
does.
Anyway, so it sounds like it's a it's a risk mitigation strategy.
Yeah, but that's always what it that's that's always what the plan was.
Right.
It was give us five years to build this platform for you.
And then it becomes open source, which is another way of saying decentralized and fully
decentralized economy.
So this was the plan from day one.
And the question is, or was how much do people and people's greed potentially interfere with
that plan?
Do you allow it to continue beyond year five?
And I think the community widely, I can see if you're going from the decentralized principle,
do we vote in the Dow?
Do we say Seb has done a good job?
I think the community at large would say yes.
You know, I think so, too.
Do we say that certain individuals have done a good job?
I think, you know, community may point to certain people and say, you've done a bad
job.
And the difference between a centralized company and a decentralized company is it truly is
about the voting power, the shares that you have having voting power, then potentially
a sip could come through in a truly purely decentralized economy.
A sip could come through that says fire Joe.
He's trash.
You know, and don't even have a plan.
Just hire anybody else.
And because the community would have full disclosure, full understanding.
And I think that's that's sort of where the mess is happening in the discussion that we're
having here between the case study A, B and C is that the community doesn't know the names
or the jobs of most of the people that make sandbox work.
Most are unknowns.
And the community doesn't know the roadmap of any one department.
So it doesn't know what to propose and sips.
It doesn't know what to expect in upcoming releases.
It doesn't know what good or should hit the cutting room floor.
And the community can't give feedback to say, I didn't even want that.
You know, and so, yeah, there's.
In a fully, truly decentralized ecosystem, in an open source building environment, people
would say together, we need to work on this and we are going to fund it.
Who can do this?
And then you, Lancer would say, I know how to code that.
Let's go.
You know, and somebody would say, great, I trust you.
You're hired for this one job.
And that sand would go to you.
That's just not going to be the case until at least the end of December 25 when the original
roadmap ends.
And you know, their funding has been extended by other sources and stuff like that.
So maybe it's longer than that.
Now all of that said, I've been here a long time.
I've seen how it works.
I've seen how some of the delays are there.
I've seen how some of these delays are taxing and may cause developers to go, you know what?
I won't.
I won't wait for that anymore.
But I've also seen how as it's happening in real time now, yeah, as it is happening in
real time now.
Yes.
And I've also seen at the same time the shift to doing well and staying relevant globally.
You know, Korea, China, Turkey coming to mind as great examples of emerging economies that
or already strong economies.
China is already bigger than the US now.
But you know, being able to go into these places and get new people impassioned about
the sandbox game.
And you know, we're going to touch on some stuff later as to why that matters.
So anyway.
So what I'm hearing is that in the relaunch of the Ambassador program with the Dow, where
I am saying that the statements the Dow community won't have a say in how the Ambassador program
is managed.
One, two, sandboxed out community and the sandbox game community are the same thing.
Three, the Dow should pay for the Ambassador program because the Dow's vision and Ambassador
program are aligned.
Four, Ambassador program is part of the sandbox games operating expenses.
Five, sandbox game company and the sandbox foundation are two separate entities.
With those being at play here, what I'm hearing you say is that the Dow paying for the Ambassador
program is a risk mitigation strategy and a broad fulfillment of its original intent
to decentralize the economy and the operations so that should they become insolvent or have
difficulty in staying above its operating expenses, as you mentioned before, that they
can separate out the Ambassadors from who's going to keep their job, who's not and all
that sort of stuff.
That's one.
Another one would be that the introduction of the sandboxed out team and the expansion
of roles there needs more clarity because that wasn't anticipated, at least in the white
paper days, but at the very least has introduced new, not complications, but it introduced
a new interactive, something we have to acknowledge because it's, it's in some cases delayed things,
in some cases it's added confusion.
In other cases it has, I'm saying this really badly, but I don't know how else to word it
right now.
It was unanticipated for it taking energy, time and effort in the process of SIP introduction
to SIP voting and implementation.
Yeah.
Well, I think that, I mean, the issue is again, that we're in this middle ground between centralization
and decentralization, right?
And Chad's saying it too, like that at the moment it's centralized and not decentralized,
right?
So unfortunately what is happening is that there is an operations layer between SIP and
sandbox.
And that would probably be fine if the sandbox was fully disclosing in what it's currently
working on.
Yeah.
Okay.
Pause.
You know, yeah.
I need to encapsulate that because I think that's, that's a lot closer now to where my
uneasiness is.
All right.
So I wrote down part of it.
We're in the middle of this ground.
We're in the middle ground between centralization and decentralization.
There is an operations layer between SIP and sandbox.
That wouldn't be a problem.
I agree.
If, now finish the rest of that sentence, please.
Okay.
So the sandbox corporation was fully disclosing of its main three roadmap layers.
VoxEdit, GameMaker and Operation.
We'll see.
The client?
Not the client.
The client gets the same updates that GameMaker gets.
It's basically just a feature set renderer.
So for yes, but it's what it is.
Like they get those updates, but it's more like now show us that without loading all
this nonsense.
Oh, okay.
So what was the third roadmap layer?
The operations layer is operations company, like operations, right?
Because in a fully decentralized system, we would know what features we need for VoxEdit
as you've proposed, right?
The ability to resize windows.
We would know where that is on the timeline all the time.
And so no one would ever have to request a SIP for it because we would already know it
exists and it may not even be a thing that has a date.
It may just be a thing where they say, we know it's a problem, right?
If the community knew, then they could propose a SIP to readjust priorities or they could
propose a SIP to, you know, say add a date to this, or they could propose a SIP that
says, we don't need that feature.
You know what I mean?
And we could save the sandbox time and money by prioritizing that as a group.
Because one of the conflicts that we run into when you have a centralized system is that
one or two guys or gals has a great idea or so they think.
And they start telling people, we're going to have this great idea.
And the work is already being done.
And the community is like, who gives a damn?
You know what I mean?
Like I mean, there is a certain feature set reason why having the ability to embed video
in your metaverse was a cool idea.
But if this is a games platform, embedded video doesn't matter.
If this is a platform where people can host a concert, embedded video matters.
How many developers do you know are hosting concerts right now?
Real answer.
None.
Like five in-house.
You know what I mean?
Like, if you look at the map, you've got Edmouse, you've got Snoop Dogg, you've got whatever.
Aoki.
Right?
There's a handful of people who care about this video format versus most people who wanted
to see ranged attacks implemented.
And ranged attacks took two years longer because we had to have the thing they sold to Snoop
Dogg and Aoki and whoever for video embeds.
You know?
I did see a good use for it last night when I saw the sandbox tutorial that just launched.
Part of the billboards was WSAD.
It showed an animation of hitting WSAD, an animation of climbing.
So it was extremely easy for a new player to see what it was I needed to do to interact
with this game because of that animation video that was embedded.
So yeah, that's a great implementation.
There's definitely some value to it.
Some value, yeah.
I think that's the difference between what a decentralized decision making process would
be versus a centralized decision making process would be.
Because if you had asked devs widely, what do you need more?
Do you need it to be able to, like you said, make WSAD blink?
Or can you just have an NFT frame?
Do you need that?
You know, the pop up that exists in most of the games right now, literally in your face,
it goes press W to walk forward, you know, and you're like, damn, I have to acknowledge
this.
Right.
That's efficient.
The cool thing, of course, is to make the video graphics happen and whatever.
I get it.
Opportunity cost.
Yeah.
So it's one of those questions of like, if you think about their budget, is that best
handled in the way that they did it by prioritizing it that way?
Or is the budget better handled doing other things?
And whatever.
It is what it is.
So again, decentralization and centralization, we got to find that space now.
And we're in that timeline where we're finding the space between those two things, where
things are going to have to fiscally decentralize.
Otherwise it's not going to work out in the long run.
Right.
And the same thing is true with the game maker operationally.
And it's not, and again, this is not to create a panic or do any of that.
They've still got literally millions and millions and millions of dollars to manage the company
and do all these things and build this infrastructure.
And they've got still the marketplace.
So in terms of the way things have been going, can they continue to go that way?
Yes.
But in terms of the way that this was written out in the white paper, how is it supposed
to go?
You know, there's that.
So like I'm perfectly comfortable, in my opinion, with the way that operations have been.
For the most part, some of the things I would have done differently, of course, but whatever,
you know, what is built now, as I mentioned before, is bigger and better than any of the
other metaverses that are out there in terms of a feature set, in terms of, you know, the
ways that the community can be worked with.
You know, I think it's I think they've done a really good job so far.
So it's just a question of how does this go now that there is a gap?
Something I, one of my second SIP ever was a roadmap of the releases.
So VoxEdit, GameMaker.
Right now is, I think it's pretty much dead.
When I sent it up, their feedback, Dallas team feedback, was that product team already
intends to release a roadmap.
And I haven't heard anything since, but it's been, I think, a couple months since they
gave me that feedback.
And they intended to do that sometime in the future.
So I wanted that early on, because I was in the same boat as most other studios, which
is what am I developing to?
And yeah.
And I think the last time there was a roadmap, I'll put that in quotes, that got released
was maybe June of 23.
There was some sort of long tweet thread that was put out, you know, and, you know, someone
better researched and figure out exactly what the date is, whatever.
But the, I was just trying to remember it off the top of my head.
But yeah, it was, you know, it talked about all the normal things.
Like what is, I think it was like staking.
Based on what land you had, that had finally launched or something.
And like, you were supposed to be able to start to generate catalysts with your land,
which I don't believe exists now.
Still, even though that was the original plan in the white paper, like staking sand in your
land to generate gems and catalysts.
Something like that.
Anyway, nonetheless, you're right.
I think you're right.
I think that SIP should have passed.
I don't think, I think if it's, that's probably the interesting bit.
If I'm comparing operations, what I'd like to see change versus what currently is.
If there is a SIP that you proposed and they say, we're not going to pass that because
it's already in the works.
Like why?
You know what I mean?
Just pass it for God's sake.
That's an auto pass.
You know what I mean?
Make Lancer feel good.
Lancer had a great idea.
You don't even have to tell Lancer that they already were doing this.
Just freaking release it and make everyone happy all the way down.
That's good PR.
You know what I mean?
That was my feedback to them.
And their response was we want to be judicious in what we spend our time and effort on and
our resources on.
Yeah, you are.
You're already spending time and effort on it.
I don't know.
I probably spent what 10 or 11 hours on this SIP to create the visuals of, all right, if
it looks like this, then it will be useful to me as a studio and all this sort of stuff.
I spent a lot of time and effort.
Oh my God.
That exists a thousand times.
Really what you were showing exists a thousand times.
I promise you.
I swear to God in PowerPoints, in Excel, they're spread all over the sandbox internally all
the time.
People waste hours of their day, every day creating a roadmap for something that never
gets released all the time.
And that's normal business.
So there's no reason why somebody should have shut down a SIP that said, show me a roadmap
if the roadmaps are already being worked on.
If they already exist, don't say no.
Say yes.
Let the community have what they want.
It's not that hard.
I'm pretty much, I think that they sent it back to the product team and the product team
is trying to release it or I don't really know where it is, but it's definitely not
moving forward to the special counsel.
It's stuck in purgatory and I think it's archived now at this point.
And sure.
Was there a budget on your proposal number two here?
Did you put money?
So I gave a full SIP.
I gave a choice to the community.
Either you can pay Lancer's Matterworlds team, who we have professional product management
and program management experience and scheduling.
I will develop the baseline, hand it to the product team with the link and they can just
update it.
And someone showed me this the other day, Trello.
So Fortnite has a public Kanban system of shipped, scheduled, queueing, all that stuff.
It's already exist as well.
Beautiful.
This thing is beautiful.
I would even make this.
So I said I will build it for a small fee or the product team can build it and here's
the stuff that how I would build it.
And I gave them the choice.
Does the community want me to build it for the product team?
Does the product team want to build it?
But they didn't.
But this is the operationally centralized versus decentralized.
The centralized system has a lot of releases coming and it's all under NDA.
So you can say release one, two, three, four, five, six, seven.
You can't say what they are.
The centralized system runs into literally any problem, right?
So let's say that they want to update the game client or something in preparation for
an upcoming event because as I mentioned, maybe it's a Snoop Dogg thing.
Maybe it's a Steve Aoki thing.
I don't know.
Maybe it's Gordon Ramsay's Hell's Kitchen and they need some special update to the game
client from something that someone promised them.
So you have to update the client.
The client has to then be tested.
If the client breaks something old.
Because the new thing was put in and then that pushes that roadmap down the line a little
bit.
And it's something that every company sort of runs into and most people never have to
see.
And it's the sort of the issue with decentralization and the way that funding or the way that token
price is really managed.
Like for the most part, 100% fully disclosing company, I genuinely believe would their token
would just crash.
I'm not talking about the same vaccine.
Pick a company.
It doesn't matter because any hiccup will have the wolves out for you.
Any issue.
So I think the roadmap as you've shown it, right?
If they came out and said this is our roadmap and they don't have these like really ridiculously
far off options and always release it early.
I think people would consider that a failure.
But as an operations guy, that's exactly what I would do.
I would say, sorry, this is not getting done until January.
Oops, I released it in November.
You know, make people happy about the fact that we're ahead of schedule and not behind
schedule.
Even though we prepared to be behind schedule and we'd have internal targets that were closer
and under promise and over deliver.
Yep.
That's that's how you do it in any business.
But so, you know, I think I get, I get where you're going with the we're in the middle
of centralization, decentralization and the operation layer, something that wouldn't normally
be a problem.
I agree.
One, the only part I differ with from you on is one, if the operations team was bigger
than it is and can facilitate the quantity being thrust at them.
Mine's taking multiple months and some of them have been waiting for months to respond
back to.
And that's because they have a very, very small team reviewing SIPs.
So that would be my only divergence.
But the other divergence would be fully disclosing of the company's operations to the extent
that a studio can participate and plan properly.
And so then I know what SIP to propose because I see this thing's coming or that thing's
coming.
Which is kind of what I did with SIP one, two and three.
One was one was the window resizing resolution.
Two was give us a roadmap leave.
These are the releases.
So three was the end game inventory filter.
Like for gosh sart, I have like 50 NFTs.
Half of them are swords.
Can you please give me a filter where I can just choose power and something above 75 that
would like I'm not sitting there scrolling all the way down trying to find that random
like come on, come on.
Yeah.
Anyways, thus was SIP.
Sip this into existence, please.
And so that brings me to the next thing that I'm still unsure about when it comes to this
SIP is the ambassador program is part of the sandboxes operations.
Like it's part of its operating expense.
I don't see how it could.
Yeah, I mean, it is, but it's not because ambassadors can be paid zero dollars.
Ambassadors voluntary.
They are chosen and then they volunteered to do any of the possible things that they
want to do that could possibly pay them or they could just not care.
You know, in the history of the sandbox, only I think one ambassador has ever had their
role revoked because they're not expected to clock in clock out, go to work.
That's fair.
People who were already doing.
I think I heard all my friends say of the 25 there are only five or active in the game
time.
Got it.
So you're talking about as an expenditure that would belong within the sandbox games
operating expenses.
Yep.
And has and has right.
Why then leverage that or transfer that expense to a separate legal entity and then retain
the ownership of that program?
We're getting for the fact for a second that the sandbox now owes its life to the sandbox
in terms of financial support and all that.
I'm going to eliminate that from the conversation because if all things being equal, separate
legal entity, that's undisputed.
Why then offload that responsibility to the Dow and take away the fact that the mitigating
risk thing.
Okay, understood that.
That does make some sense, but as a matter of academic correctness, maybe.
I looked at the vision when Amit said it's part of the vision and I looked at the answer
it with some I'll answer it with some known unknown.
I mean, maybe it's known.
Hey, Hottle.
I know it.
Go ahead.
What's up, Foddle Hill?
How you doing?
I'm as I mentioned, I was the lead ambassador.
Yeah.
I believe that there will be another.
There isn't currently one now.
So I think that again with the the information pipeline still must go centralized to decentralized.
But I think the idea of the lead ambassador role is to take on the role currently held
by a lovely lady named Amy in the sandbox right now, which is the lead community manager
is Amy.
But nonetheless, she you won't even find her on social media.
She doesn't use the social media is on purpose.
I don't think I've ever interacted with Amy before.
Probably not.
She's she's doing like every media article, all that sort of stuff all the time.
All kinds of stuff.
Yeah.
But so the lead ambassador is probably going to get their information from the lead of
community management or marketing.
They may attend a sandbox marketing meeting having no input necessarily.
They just be there, get informed, disseminate that to the ambassadors.
So it's, you know, allowing that what is centralized infrastructure to have the decentralized community
engagement team.
And again, as I mentioned, I think over time, the moderation team that is sandbox staff
may change to be the most impassioned ambassador.
And with the problem being that the budget is being dramatically reduced, though the
impassioned ambassadors will probably change over time unless people really just already
love the platform.
Just different people.
You know, it just be like you've got these ambassadors that are out there now.
Right.
And I know I've seen it in the chat in the private channels that some of them are saying
already this won't be worth my time if this changes me.
Some have said it publicly, by the way.
They're the same people.
But okay, we talk about it.
We talk about it internally because the ambassadors have a channel in this court.
It's just for the.
And in that channel, if something is going wrong, generally speaking, the ambassadors
have the beat on the street.
They go back in and go, hey, this is dumb and you need to fix this.
And then the sandbox staff, generally speaking, looks at the ambassadors input first and will
say the ambassadors are hearing this from the community and then they'll go dig into
the community, pull some quotes and send it back in in a weekly report and say this is
what's wrong right now.
Fix it.
And anyway, so if all the ambassadors are crying all at the same time about how this
isn't going to work for them, then the question is, do we have other impassioned people all
around the world who are still excited about the product and don't care about the money?
Or can you get so many ambassadors that they don't have to work hard.
They just have to show up a little like, you know, care for 30 minutes in discord, care
for 30 minutes on Twitter, something like that, where the community can still be acknowledged
and addressed without needing that over time.
Again, over time, as things get sufficiently decentralized.
That will always have to be true.
The ambassadors will always have to be just excited people and not people who have a financial
incentive to do it.
Unless again, there's a whole bunch of volume of trade in the marketplace that can generate
a whole bunch of money to the sandbox company so that they can fund the Dow better.
If the sandbox company can fund the Dow better than the ambassadors can be funded better
in this current system.
But because that percentage will always go to a centralized entity and not a decentralized
entity, that percentage that then funds the Dow is always going to be having some centralized
mechanism that we're all in a more idealistic setting.
We're all voting for who's in charge of that money, who can be the treasurer, who can be
the whatever.
So let me see if I can actively listen to what I just heard.
In addition to this being a risk mitigation technique, insulate the ambassadors from the
potential complications with the fiscal future of the sandbox game.
This also presents an opportunity to insulate the ambassadors from the centralized nature
of a company and its corporate hierarchy into this new decentralized model.
Assuming the contract that they get, assuming that the contract that the ambassadors get
comes from the Dow.
It's not.
All my friends answered that in the forum post.
I want to see it on paper.
I can show it to you right now.
I got the link.
You have the contract.
That's what I'm saying.
No, no, no, no.
I have the answer from all my friends.
That's the issue.
If they're funded by the Dow, then the Dow's money has to be how they get their contract
and the contract must be disseminated by the Dow.
That's a good point.
I don't know how that works.
I would basically take everything you've been told in.
And this is just the way that I think.
I take everything you've been told about it, crumble it up into a ball, throw that shit
out because until you actually see a contract come down from the sandbox or from the Dow,
we don't know where the money really comes from.
So I do know there's a legal way to do it.
You would just accounts payable to you would just transfer the money back to the Dow either
as a loan or as a fee for service payment.
And then you'd subcontract, you mentioned earlier, subcontract out the ambassador program
function to the sandbox game company.
And then just, I mean, it's a weird kind of roundabout way, but it starts to establish
a separate process for you sent the money to the Dow, a legal entity responsible for
decentralized governance that decentralized governments then voted on the continuation
of the ambassador program and allocated funds to it, which it then paid back to sandbox
game.
Right.
Makes sense.
And that's it.
Right.
Like nothing changes if that happens exactly as you describe it.
Nothing at all changes is exactly the same.
Now, just more ambassadors get added and the amount of money they get paid is less.
But you know, nothing changes infrastructure really.
Okay.
I buy that.
I buy that it, it introduces a new concept.
And the reason why it doesn't make doesn't unsettle me anymore is because it introduced
the paradigm of the Dow being the originator.
I'll put it in quotes for now.
We're still, you know, still all the tend the linkages.
But it introduces the paradigm that the Dow has voted and authorized the expenditure.
Yeah.
That's the new thing that changed.
That's it.
Right.
So let's assume like they're all of the contracts are written in month to month.
It's possible under this infrastructure that somebody proposes a SIP that says no ambassadors.
We don't need them.
And then every ambassador instantly cut on.
So it, despite the fact that the money originally came from the sandbox, despite the fact that
the money goes back to the sandbox game and a centralized aspect, this is suggesting that
the Dow and by extension, the people could say ambassadors are worthless.
So okay, you don't need that now.
I see that now.
Now that that checks.
Cool.
I think that satisfies my cognitive dissonance that I'm having that I did have on that ambassador
program.
The two the two things that really sell it is in mid transition, there is a disturbance
between the operations layer that is exercised between the SIP and the voting that has to
be resolved.
And it's compounded by the fact that we don't have insight into the three roadmap layers.
So those two things are creating a turbulence that that is causing almost a paralysis of
participation.
People are either unmotivated, they're disconcerted, there doesn't seem like there's any hope or
why even bother at this point, and then that is that is channeling this fueling this need
or temptation for the sandbox wallet to vote to satisfy basic quorum needs.
Yeah.
Cool.
Check.
Second thing is, why would the Dow even consider paying for the sandboxes operating expenses,
ignoring the fact that the Dow's money came from the sandbox.
I'm ignoring that is academically doesn't matter.
But why would the Dow do that?
That would do that because it creates the paradigm where the Dow is authorizing the
expenditure and the voter is the reason why that authorization happened.
Also ignoring the fact that at the sandbox not voted with its wallet, it wouldn't have
met quorum and thus wouldn't have been wouldn't have proved just proved.
However, a thought experiment exists there that right, right before this happened, it
had a 60% yes vote.
That's what I had recorded.
So had it had quorum, it would have passed.
So then you have this kind of academic debate.
Is quorum a measure by which we judge participation and or authorization?
Seb has previously said yes, because in his Mia bowed in his AMA with me about three weeks
ago he said quorum is an important mechanism to to for the Dow to judge its motivation
and interest in a set.
All right, those are I'm near paraphrasing his words there.
So then the sandbox comes in and says, hey, this isn't going to get quorum.
That important mechanism is playing, but because delegations haven't been introduced yet, maybe
it's not quite so offensive that we introduce our vote because we're not really battling
against the temptation of delegations to just completely.
I don't know, overtake voting process.
So all right, I can buy that.
I can buy that kind of strongman argument.
Yeah, but only for now.
Yeah, when delegations are introduced, I think that that that that gets eviscerated in terms
of you just brought up a good point, too, that I that I think that is obviously it's
a hot topic in the community.
And that's the the sandbox using voting power at all.
Because you know, what has been the messaging for the last all of the years?
That they want to give the power to the people they want to listen to the people they want
to sufficiently decentralize.
And if I'm going to use wrestling as a term here, I don't know if you're familiar with
wrestling.
I don't watch it, so it's pretty popular, though.
In professional wrestling, it's great as a performer to get people to boo for you.
It's great as a performer to get people to cheer for you.
But if you don't make noise, if the crowd just doesn't care about you at all, that is
an abject failure.
Right.
And I think that's the interesting thing about this voting the ambassador program.
If no one's voting, that means the community doesn't give a shit about them.
As an ambassador, I'm telling you, the community doesn't care about me.
Some people do.
I care about you.
They see my face.
Right.
They're engaged people who are engaged with me, and those people care.
But if the community is not voting for you to get paid as an ambassador, at least in
this structure, then to force that on through is inappropriate.
I think.
Because you may not vote yes or no.
And if you don't vote yes and you don't vote no and you don't abstain, then this measure
doesn't need to continue because there's not enough people excited about it one way or
another.
There's not enough people excited about it to even be in the damn conversation to say
abstain.
So you don't need that.
And I think that's something where the sandbox is learning.
Or maybe they aren't.
You know what I mean?
They figured out as it continues.
You saw one through three.
They went, no, we're going to reverse those.
They didn't reverse four and five, as I recall.
It was because this snapshot only allows you to have three active at one point.
It was a website problem.
That's what they say.
But they could choose to just ignore the snapshot.
They could have another set proposed that says we're going to revoke for.
OK, no, they could have done that.
You're right.
It's not that hard.
It's really not that the veto is what it's called.
Right.
So we're going to do this.
We're going to veto these four and five so that they can reach a quorum.
Oh, yeah.
They could have changed their vote to no.
They could have just literally just vetoed, you know, but up six that says vetoing four
and five.
And you say, yes, the community votes unanimously.
Engagement is there.
We're listening to the people and it's possible.
Nonetheless.
Yeah.
You've got that you've got that issue with them voting and hopefully they figure that
out because I think if they want to be sufficiently decentralized, if they want to sufficiently,
you know, be represented by their people, by their communities, then they will allow
that community to do that and use their financing that the community has provided them to.
Publicize and promote voting.
And you know, yeah, it makes it makes sense under that light.
And and and the AMA after while Cyril was explaining and said both seven, Cyril were
explaining that was a mistake.
It was a big mistake that they voted.
They're sorry.
And also was a mistake.
They left out the land from the voting power and said mention that I was trying to find
it, but I know he said it.
They said that we don't want to use our wallet.
I can't remember if he said that we will not use it.
That's why I'm not going to pin him to that right now until I can find what I actually
wrote down because I know I quoted him like that.
That's good for me to know from now on.
But they made it clear they do have no intention of voting.
And they stuck to that until a couple of days ago, six, 10 and 11 voting in the sandbox
academy.
Which, by the way, love you, Mark, glad that happened and then voting in the sandbox ambassador
program.
That was the first time they had touched the wall had touched the voting process since
since six, four and five.
So and it's been silent as a grave in some cases.
I've I've said my congratulations because I feel too many different things about seeing
that vote happen.
Yeah, I'm happy.
I'm happy, too, I regret the circumstances in which it went through.
Yeah.
And like I'd agree with that.
I think it's interesting because knowing what I know about the way that the ambassadors
reacted to the SIP and just generally hating the way that they drafted the budget inside
baseball for you, this was written before the Dow.
Existing, yeah, yeah, I guess.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So the first whatever it is, like 15 of these are just, again, centralized ideas.
Yeah, that made me so mad when I saw that.
Oh, my God.
They're coming out slowly.
They're slowly trickling out to continue to maintain engagement.
Is it a good idea?
Sure.
But they're all, in my opinion, written with the same flaws, faults, right?
That they don't have and I'm seeing Don Son's comment.
I want to just highlight that.
Can we get back to that a little bit?
Because I think it's really good.
But they're all written in the same way where the budget isn't actually thought out.
Like it's not discreet on how this money is going.
And so all of the same questions keep coming out with every single one of these SIPs from
the very first one that had a giant other budget.
I mean, if I go back to your slide, Lancer, on the checkbook, you'll notice that literally
nothing from LiveOps has passed SIPs or even proposed SIPs.
And that's going to continue to happen if, as they've been saying, decisions that happen
in a DAO can't affect operations.
Like they literally said that you can't change the way the sandbox is operating with these
DAO decisions, but they have a huge budget for LiveOps.
And those concepts bump.
And so SIPs can't go into proposal to do things like you said, where rescaling and resize
in the windows, that's probably a LiveOps situation.
You know, you're never going to see that budget go down.
And anyway, so it's a fascinating point.
I didn't think about it like that.
Because as we've talked about here so far with all the case study conversation, we either
need to slowly move towards blurring the line or eventually just delete the line and allow
the community to make the decisions if it is a decentralized economy.
Yeah.
Well, there's something that...
So a future podcast not long from now.
I'm going to have some Apecoin people in.
And some of the things that as I'm listening to them BOTV and hearing how the governance
working group works, they produce something called a transparency report.
I think it's every quarter.
And I was reading it the other day.
And it basically divulges everything that the Apecoin DAO and the Apecoin Foundation
is doing so that people can be stay informed.
And their motto is, by the way, their motto is apes don't read.
So there's a portion of the community which doesn't look at it at all.
But for those who wish to stay informed, it is a measure by which you can understand and
base your future SIPs on.
So it has stuff like, we took this many actions.
There were this many forum users and this many new proposals that happened.
This is how we judged and decided on different measures.
And it gave you a very, it gave me, when I was reading it, pretty solid sense for what
it was that they were trying to do in that given window period of time, which was quarterly.
We have no such mechanism for the sandbox except through public medium articles, or
being there in person to talk to people, or through these interviews where I have on like
seven asking them different questions or AMAs, and it's very difficult for me as a SIP writer
to do something that's relevant to the community.
No, no, that's relevant to the company.
So where I just have a SIP now going in place, SIP under development, which is the governance
working group, and then the builders challenge working group.
And the idea, without having any knowledge of how things are working on the inside, the
idea is that the builders challenge working group would propose the rule set and the key
metrics, the KPIs for builders challenge three.
And then the builders working group would be a more governance under study of the special
council.
So right now there's a gap between the special council is deliberating on things that are
legal, moral, ethical, and not redundant.
But then you don't have anyone judging how, how do we do process improvement?
It's technically the Dow team, I think, but they are, they're not elected, one.
And two, it's very unclear where their boundaries exist.
It seems like we're all just trying to figure it out as we go along.
And there's no central elected entity by which we can bring about our own thought process
to say this is the way we want to go.
This is the criteria by which we want to be judged by.
Doesn't exist right now.
And I'm seeing the A-coin Dow do that through their working groups.
So I put it to the SIP and the forums.
This is the way I want to approach going about figuring our own criteria with what we want
to judge ourselves.
And we're currently building the proposal out right now.
I don't even know the answer.
I'm just doing what I'm trying to go ahead.
I am super hype that you are using the Dow for the right purposes in the right ways down
the right channels.
Right.
And I'm going to make prediction here as somebody who has some understanding of the internal
workings of this place.
I predict that your Builders Challenge suggestion will not only not be edited but be entirely
rejected.
Sure.
But I want you to make it anyway.
Because I want to make it anyways.
Anyways, I want to hear their rejection.
Yeah.
So, so far, that system, I believe through stage one and stage two is a failure.
Because it puts a pool of potential earnings up there as the only way that these devs can
make their money, essentially.
So I think I talked about it before on one of your shows where I believe that the Builders
Challenge, it's completely eliminated and you just allowed devs to mint access passes
in any quantity they want.
Then it solves for devs not making enough money.
Because a developer can go out and they can mint a million units of an NFT that is the
access pass to their lamp.
And then sell those units for 10 bucks a piece and make 10 million dollars because they made
a damn good game that a million people want to play.
And it makes it where the sandbox stops being this sort of weird as serial metaversy like
place and ends up being closer to the Apple App Store, the Google Play Store, the Epic
Games Store, where wherever these sales happen, the sandbox is getting 5%.
They're getting their cut.
That's a hell of a lot cheaper than Apple where they get 30%.
It's a hell of a lot cheaper than Epic Games that takes 0% up until your whatever, 10,000th
or 100,000th unit.
And then they take like 30% thereafter.
So what you would do there is not just make the devs that are making games today happy,
but you would make your platform relevant to devs that are already making games on,
for lack of a better term, real gaming platforms.
I mean, you'd be pulling double fine studios wanting to come here, right?
Okay, the publisher would want to be here if they know that their devs can sell a million
units here.
But all you're doing at the moment with these builders challenges is saying, here's a million
total dollars, not $10 million for one dev, a million total dollars divided by 166,464
lands.
Good luck.
Right?
And I think that doesn't incentivize a lot of developers to come make damn good games
here.
And I don't care if it's a game, it could be a concert venue.
You know, if Snoop Dogg can mint a million tickets to go to Snoop Dogg's next concert
for 10 bucks a piece, Snoop Dogg would win the builders challenge, wouldn't they?
Because they'd have a million people show up.
That's fair.
That's true.
You know?
But if the marketing money to go out, that wouldn't have to just come from the sandbox.
It would come from the dev who succeeded and they make Lancer's game number two, Electric
Boogaloo, and it sold two million units this time.
And he just made $20 million and you pull that home.
And of that $20 million budget, well, out of your first 10 million, you spent a million
dollars in marketing because you just wanted somebody to come to your one land parcel to
play your one game and they bought it.
They came and they paid for it.
You know, it's not different or really special.
You could easily sell this to Activision.
If you said, hey, when you sell your access pass, did you know you can make 5% forever
when people resell that access pass?
They'd be like, what?
You sell that new gun for your game, that skin, that NFT, every time it gets resold
on OpenSea, you still make 5% of the resale value.
What?
They'd be in.
You could sell it to them, but you need to allow them to have access to the space and
they just don't have that now.
So I think the builder's challenge personally, like this proposal that you put out, I think
you're going to run into on the proposal that they're going to immediately reject it because
they're going to say, we already have plans.
Why did they already have plans?
Because they already recognize failures.
Right.
So whatever you pitch, they're going to go, we've already thought of this.
But what you pitch could have been better.
And I think that's the junction that we're going to run into as we continue to discuss
these case studies and all these things is the, eventually they got to start to listen
to the decentralized side when the centralized side isn't working.
If that makes sense.
My plan right now, in the beginning it was too hopeful.
I thought when I proposed the SIP, that it would go through the process to vote and then
the Dow would be like, yes or no.
And then that would be the answer.
And then the sandbox team, for better or worse, would take that answer and either enact it
or it would be a good business reason why they wouldn't.
And then we'd have that debate.
Right.
It wouldn't be the debate of, does it even go to vote?
Like that's the part that threw me was the obstruction from it going from to vote and
not even to vote, not even to the special counsel, even make it to the special counsel.
It stayed in draft the whole time going back and forth and the Dow team and going to the
product team and this kind of extended limbo.
And then finally like, we kind of have this already, so we're not going to go do it.
That's happened twice now.
Two of my five SIPs.
And it's just like, what the heck, man?
You know how many hours I put in at the least give me the dignity of letting people judge
and decide it.
But that's not the current approach.
That's where, you know, hopefully those folks in operations are listening to this conversation.
I hope so too, because I love them.
And you should see the comments between them and I, it gets spicy.
Oh man, I'm like, hey, I don't agree with this, but it's very, to me, it's very constructive.
They give me their approach and then I'm like, okay, here's my approach.
And we're in this kind of weird, I can't get it to the special counsel without their
consent and they can't stop acknowledging me until I'm satisfied with the, with our
agreement.
Otherwise, they're pushing a proposal that doesn't represent the author and they're there
make the proposal better, not substitute their own proposal.
Right.
So it's just kind of weird on guard sort of situation.
And it's fascinating.
It's fascinating.
Over time, again, I think that's going to have to shift because they're going to see
their own metrics continue to show that their decision making isn't creating engagement.
Right.
And that's, that's going to be the difference maker in the end, if they want to succeed
as the management of this doubt.
I'm with you on that.
Yeah.
And unfortunately, you know, we're the first to the gate.
The person who's first to the door gets played the best and Pepe for some reason just magically
floated right through it.
And you know what?
I'm happy because magic was hell of a step.
I know.
It's like he was forced to the door and the gate guard was like, huh, what?
Someone just happened.
Someone just walked through.
Yeah.
Right.
And then I come through.
They're like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
I think I know why that happened.
I think I brought it up before on one of these shows too.
And maybe it was somewhere else, but because I personally have focused on and the greatest
percentage of voting power in this space.
The greatest percentage of voting power is focused on folks who have land.
Right.
I think we know that.
And so if landowners have the greatest amount of power, the proposals that you put through
that positively affect landowners, the most are most likely to get passed and fast.
They're most likely to get rejected and fast because it would be like, no, this is terrible
for me as a landowner.
You know, then that's going to get rejected.
So I think Pepe's got the.
They had the right first step, which is to say this is going to fix things for developers.
And if the developers have things fixed for, then it should fix things for the economy
of the larger platform that funds this Dow.
And so I get it.
When I was talking earlier about what I would approve of, like, I mean, full disclosure,
right.
We talk about the ambassador program.
I said no.
Even with the 60% yes vote, I said no because it wasn't written clearly and well.
I abstain.
The money didn't matter.
But I said no straight up because they they're having that Q4 budget be the same size as
2025 budget.
I was like, that shit makes no sense.
Just make the money even across the board.
Tell me how you're going to pay ambassadors.
What is the new structure?
What are the new incentives for ambassadors?
Right.
Like, again, I mentioned back in the day, we used to pay people for social media posts
and it was literally like a quarter a tweet.
At some point I was like, yo, I'm tired of checking everybody's tweets.
I swear to God, this is so much time for me and it's not worth, you know, three minutes
for a quarter, you know, so I'm we're not going to pay them the quarter because it costs
us more for me to check it than it does for that.
Anyway, but it's that sort of thing where I wanted to see that sit come down with clarity
on what the ambassadors are getting paid for if they are getting paid.
How is that structure working?
How many ambassadors are you targeting hiring?
How many ambassadors are you targeting replacing, if any, that sort of thing?
And the other SIP 10 off top my head, I can't remember exactly what that was.
Oh, yeah.
So the Academy, right?
The Academy is an example of something where, again, I doubt 12.
Excuse me.
But 12.
Yeah, yeah.
So 12, 12 is what I was thinking.
But the so fundamentally, the idea that we are going to educate folks spectacular.
Right.
Doing it in a closed school like setting, I didn't love personally, because I thought
you limited reach with that.
The budget was probably fine.
But I want to see it was pretty small things considered.
Yeah, I want to say.
Second or third lowest of all time steps for us.
Yeah, I wanted to see a thousand Filipinos get education, not, you know, 30 or 154, I
think.
Sure.
Whatever the number is like, you can do more just by being on line.
A certain part of that budget could have possibly been served to getting more people access
to being able to do it.
You know what I mean?
Like, have a screen with a TV in a room in one education facility and another and another
and another and another, you know, just connect with the people who are in charge of those
outreach programs or whatever.
So you can educate 10 classrooms worth of kids at the time that you do one.
I thought it was just better served in another way.
And because it doesn't fix the fundamental issues that the sandbox has, all of those
kids who got educated would have to be reeducated, not even counting the fact that, hey, the
sandbox game terms of service says you can't use it because you're under 18.
These are college students.
OK, yeah.
So again, I'm just thinking back to the fact that like Seb tweeted someone in Japan or
Korea, a young kid the other day learning how to do it.
And I was like, oh, yeah, I saw that.
Yeah.
Like kids breaking TOS, but we're going to promote it.
You know what I mean?
But it is what it is.
Good PR, though.
It is what it is.
It's great PR, but it sends the wrong message because it like gets folks excited to get
their kids into this space where it may well be illegal in their country.
If you're in Japan and your kid is in a play to earn space, they're considered child laboring.
Like that's why we couldn't pay sand to people in Japan during season three.
And we had to give them a special, unique NFT.
Interesting.
Yep.
There's all sorts of, you know, or, you know, different different laws, different spaces.
Anyway, I move on.
I think I feel much better about case study a under those strict conditions, although
I feel like we're walking a tightrope.
All right.
So case study a I'll lock that one into place.
Ambassador program being funded through the Dow is a way to mitigate risk to the ambassador
program.
It's called to the future of the ambassador program.
And then we'll put in parentheses, priority, priority, conflicts, or TSB.
And then number two, we're in the middle of we're in the middle of centralization and
decentralization.
There's an operations layer between SIP and the sandbox.
And normally that wouldn't be a problem if sandbox company we are able to fully see into
three main road maps.
If see into the okay.
That's the box that it game maker and operations.
And then the third one, and that's the one that really locked in for me.
It creates a new paradigm where the Dow is authorizing the expenditure versus it all
just coming out of the sandbox company and its corporate hierarchy.
Oh, all right.
Case study B. Also, do you want to take a do you want to take a short bio break?
Okay.
Okay, case study B, this one is this one can be a little raw.
So before we start into it, there are a lot of emotions is probably the wrong word.
There's a lot of discussions, emotions, all sorts of things surrounding this topic because
crafter has been a very visible part of the community.
And many people on boarded before before they saw crowd crafter didn't have an account and
after they saw crafter they did have an account.
So there there's that recognition.
Right.
And Joseph, you've been in the same situation.
Having been a streamer for many years, four people tuned into your stream, it didn't have
an account and afterwards, they're now sandbox people, I could probably even count myself
among them.
I don't even know that mid December 2021.
You're probably streaming.
I didn't even know who you were at the time.
There's no telling right.
Telling who it was I tuned into.
But so crafter put out a sip on the drafts so that that's that's an important draft idea.
So sip ideas.
Hold on, make sure I have my facts straight.
I always get those two confused.
It was up dang it.
I blame deeper.
Here it is.
And it's in ideas.
Excuse me.
Okay, so sip ideas.
Let me fix what I can see.
There we go.
So sip ideas.
For all of you who don't are unaware, there are three, four states in which a sip can
be.
One is active, mean it is undergoing vote at this right instant.
Right.
So the only one doing that right now is sip 13, which is the energy drop.
Then there are sip drafts.
Those are undergoing public comment.
So that's where mine is right now the windows for sizing, and also the metaverse and disability.
Those have been advanced from ideas to draft draft being the 14 day public comment, when
it while it goes to the sip council or the special counsel for vote on redundancy, moral,
ethical, all that.
Then there's sip idea.
And that is where people anyone can post a paragraph if they wanted to, of what they
think they want to do a sip on.
And then that is where you can kind of get a sounding board of are you in the right direction?
Early early feedback.
All right, so the difference between sip ID and sip draft sip draft are those steps who
have been submitted via email to sip at sandboxed out calm.
And that and the message you put here is the link to the template that I filled out that
is required.
Okay, then it is a draft.
And then the fourth one is it's withdrawn.
A sip that has been through one of these previous planes has been withdrawn by the creator.
And the only one that has gone through that is Kural, who did creative first, I think
he was sand out five or six, we interviewed him.
And he withdrew his sip after it received a negative recommendation from the special
counsel.
Okay.
So that doesn't mean that if you get a negative recommendation that you will then you would
then force withdraw it.
That's not going to happen.
So Sandel podcast, I think I'm going to get a negative, a negative recommendation from
the sandbox, a special counsel, because it is considered kind of redundant to what the
sandbox Dow wants to propose its own special its own podcast.
Alright, so that would make mine redundant.
I think I'm going to get a negative from the special counsel.
Even if I do, I'm still going to add requests it goes to vote, because we're still doing
it right.
And the sandbox Dow doesn't have a podcast officially.
So right now.
So yeah, that's the four states.
Alright, so in the sip idea, alright, crafter posted a sponsor him as a as a sponsor.
As a user generated content creator, an onboarding specialist.
And in this, he explains all he wants to do.
The TLDR being the Dow will benefit from increased awareness, growth, engagement, basically reimbursing
him for all of the many hundreds of hours he's put as a not ambassador as a as a SanFam
individual member, and we would would fund and compensate him for his full time, creatorship
and onboarding specialist.
Okay.
And then he had a whole like, I'll do this Monday through Friday.
And here's how I would divide my time up all that stuff.
Okay.
This is how this is while this can be state case study.
Okay.
You don't see it right now.
But there was a lock button right there about a week ago.
And it was locked by the Dow team because they put it in here.
Right?
Where is it up up up up up?
It was by Geraldine, I believe.
Oh, wasn't here.
Where to go?
That'd be right there.
There.
Okay.
So this post by Geraldine 18 days ago said, we appreciate crafter what you're bringing
to the table.
We believe that your proposal closely aligns with the objectives of the Ambassador Program.
Both initiatives share the common goal.
Due to these overlapping objectives, we feel that pursuing collaboration through the Ambassador
Program will be a more effective approach.
Can you apply to the Ambassador Program?
And as of that, he closed the discussion.
Okay.
There's point A, then I'm like, well, hold on a second.
They're not aligned, because right at that time, all my friends stated that anyone who
went on contract with the Dow and that the Dow went on contract to be an ambassador would
be compelled to give to be part of the communication channel, they would they would be compelled
to talk about sips and all that sort of stuff.
So then I said, that's definitely not in close alignment with what crafters proposing.
Crafter would not be compelled to do those sorts of things.
And so I posted and it was the same time that they also closed my Sandex, which was basically
a Google sheet of of publicly researched.
This person owns this wallet.
And therefore, here's how you can not connect to them to request their vote.
The same thing that that had been went through to get his vote to contact all the landowners
I have to do now.
Sandex would make that publicly viewable for the whole Dow to contact.
And so Geraldine came in and said that there's probably there's privacy things going on there
that we don't agree with.
So they closed it.
And so I opened up this help and feedback to say, can you please reopen them?
Here's the reasons why.
All right.
Out of that.
And still talking with Cyril about that, because he eventually weighed in.
So we were going back and forth on that as we speak.
But out of that came the case study.
Cyril said in one of his responses to that thread, I opened up saying, please open them
up.
Here's the reasons why.
One of the things Cyril said was voting.
However, a full time sponsored by the Dow UGC onboarding specialist with no reporting
line to the content team is a different beast entirely and would effectively disturb its
current operations.
This was in the midst of a much larger response.
Here it is.
So he's basically saying it was a judgment call.
And we don't think that a full time UGC onboarding specialist with no connection or adherence
to the sandbox game team is in the best interest of the community.
And that's why we closed it.
All right.
So that's the context by which this became a case study.
You have here a potential sip saying I want to be funded for my efforts that I'm already
doing.
We had like 200 stream hours and over 20 people live viewing at one point and all that.
You have someone saying I want to be compensated.
Will the Dow accept this?
And then the operations team says, actually, no, we don't want that to go to vote because
it will conflict with its reporting to the sandbox game.
There's a divergence right there.
Okay, Joseph, what do you think?
Okay, so I'm going to lay it out there from my operations experience.
Okay.
It's my understanding.
What was the number?
Is it on the SIP?
How much did Crafter request?
Yes, I believe it was.
I'll find that while you're pretty sure.
As I recall, it was about 40,000 US dollars.
It was a number in sand.
Maybe it might have been in USD.
If it's written in USD, first of all, I think in my opinion, if you make any proposal and
you write it in US dollars, I'm going to say no immediately because this is not the US
dollars Dow.
This is a sand Dow.
So it was 5000 per month for six months, $30,000 USD.
Right.
30,000 total US dollars for six months.
All right.
Which our current trading is about $30,000.
Started by point 36, I think right now, 83,000 sand.
Right now, every person with exception to those who are ambassadors and get paid in
a different pay schedule is a salaried sandbox staffer that also incidentally live streams,
right?
On the official channels.
So all the live streams have no additional cost aside from, as they mentioned, the ambassador
program, right?
So if crafter is a part of the ambassador program, he falls within spec.
What is expected already?
However, let's just for the sake of doing it, I want to do $30,000.
You said six months, right?
Six months, he said $5,000 a month.
Six months.
Okay.
So six months, four weeks and 30,000 total.
Yep.
Six months, four weeks, 40 hours.
Sandboxes trading at 25 cents on the dollar right now.
And he so that means that according to that proposal, crafter is expecting to make $31.25
US per hour on schedule to produce a live stream, which is maybe fine.
However, to 20 people an hour that is paying $1.5625 per person, KPI.
If I'm going to do a normal marketing campaign and I'm thinking about my marketing budget,
right?
I think that's really what you're looking at.
You want to reach out to a potential streamer and say, I need to get increased exposure
for the product.
This isn't that crafter is a specialized person who understands the tools.
They understand the platform.
All those things have certain value, but generally speaking, you're spending in the ballpark
of 25 to maybe 75 cents per thousand exposures.
Like it's not that much.
And you know, you spend more generally for a live streamer per exposure.
But if I'm paying 31 an hour, I'm expecting to probably see that crafter is going to have
like 150 viewers on their stream at any given moment.
Now how does that track with what happens in the sandbox game?
You know, Panda Pops works there.
Panda Pops also incidentally streams.
Alex works there also incidentally streams.
They have other functions while they're not live on the show.
And so they cost zero dollars an hour to stream.
Now let's take all of that and throw it out for a second.
You're not asking for money from the sandbox game.
You're asking for money from the Dow.
So you're asking for money from the community to say, what I do is going to boost, not sustain,
but boost this platform to be more successful tomorrow than it is today.
And the other conflict that I see with this, again, this is not disparaging crafter.
The exact same thing happens to me.
The 20 people who are watching his show are 20 people who are watching mine.
And 11 of those people are on your Twitch right now.
And they're basically all the same damn people.
So now you're taking $30,000 so that you could entertain those same people again, which again,
may be OK in the right situations.
But he's got a service aid demand that is not currently met.
And you've got a VoxEdit streamer and you've got a designer streamer and you've got entertainment
streams.
And you've got special event streams that are currently covered.
And so what does a crafter do differently with this Dow budget that doesn't exist?
And as you mentioned just a second ago, he's probably not going to stay focused on Dow
discussion.
That's the demand that is not currently met.
So that would be something that should possibly be required to do.
I'm now in it.
You're meeting it, right?
You're meeting it potentially what you do has a value.
And the question then is, again, if we look at it under traditional microscope of marketing
expenses, do we have a CPC?
You should replace the parenthesis KPI because that's not what a KPI is generally like a
metrics thing.
You want to do like CPC.
Cost per click?
Oh, OK, got it.
Yeah.
CPC slash CPM is like the two terms that are standard in marketing.
But the I don't know marketing that well.
So thank you for that.
Yeah.
So basically the.
If I'm funding your show, because you're the guy now, you're the guy who's known for doing
this podcast, for doing these SIP discussions and having good engaging conversation.
I just turn my question and you do.
But that's that's what we all do.
That's what we all do.
You just turn it on and you have compelling chats and you find the right voices to get
in those conversations and we learn together and we don't all know.
And so the.
Then you think about the other thing, right?
One of the other reasons why I think this doesn't make a lot of sense is the funding
podcasts, funding marketing for products from folks who aren't highly practiced in it with
other connections already is exactly how a lot of money got dumped out of the eight coin
down.
Yeah.
They wasted so much money funding people to have three white dudes sit around microphones
and talk about this.
You know what I mean?
And at the you know, whatever.
That's mostly a joke because I get it.
I get it.
But the yeah, it's.
The overall you're looking at a value proposition.
I think personally that the value proposition isn't there, but it's not because crafters
not great, right?
It's just that there's not that much money to throw around anymore.
What about your hero said that the reason why they closed it or that the Dow team wouldn't
advance it is because there's no reporting line to the content team.
Yeah.
So it's the same problem if they if there was a demand for this podcast, then the marketing
team for the sandbox official would have just bought him.
The marketing team for the sandbox official would have said, we love what you're doing.
Come officially work for us so that you can be in the Monday meeting to get all the information
for the week so that you can disseminate that information every single day on your part
or on your show.
But what right does the Dow team have to decide that in advance of the Dow?
Signing that for either itself.
No, it doesn't.
I'd agree with that.
But that's the fundamental difference between the idea of decentralized anything having
now one to 10 people tell me now.
Right.
Like on its base, the community should have been able to have these conversations, make
this decision and say no.
The community probably should have been educated in the process of the Dow.
The crafter should have probably been educated enough to not pitch this in dollars.
But crafter was smart enough to know that sand.
Since the previous peak has not had a bounce.
Yeah, it's just very slowly.
Like loss buying power.
And so crafter would have had to pitch getting paid way too damn much early so that maybe
at the end of that six months, they're sure, you know, with a 20, 30 percent price reduction
or something, they were still covered.
Not to say that the sand will do that or whatever, but you don't know the uncertainty in a market,
especially in a market where we're essentially all waiting for the Federal Reserve to reduce
rates.
Everything is bleeding.
The S&P is bleeding.
Bitcoin is bleeding.
Sand is bleeding.
It's all going to go down slowly over time.
So the problem is, though, it's education that we're lacking in terms of how do we propose
these things?
You know, so no reporting line to the content team could have been something that crafters
suggested and made the adjustment in with included in this.
I will report to the marketing team and you, the community will get a daily news skit,
you know, whatever.
Whatever makes it make sense.
What obligation would he have had to report to the content?
Well none, except that the if there is no reporting, right, then it would have had to
been someone like you, Lancer, going, man, you still only have 20 viewers and it's been
a year and they're all the same people.
It would have had to been someone like you who would have had to be and you're not an
expert in the marketing department, right?
You would have had to have been tracking that crafters not moving the needle or that they
are.
And otherwise, if you're not, you're literally throwing away money as Dow voters.
And so that's the advantage to reporting line to the content team is there's at least someone
with experience in there that can say you're doing nothing or you're doing something, right?
That's it's what you want.
It's what you want to see.
Again, you know, it's a more centralized approach and that's the convergence that we need to
come to.
I believe and I would have voted this down.
If it comes to a vote, I will probably voted down.
I believe that you don't need that because while what crafter does is important, if it's
like the other streamers, like the rest of us do, you have your main focus is something
fundamental, something valuable that continues to push the the plot.
It makes it easier to build in or it makes it easier to play in.
It makes it you know, you want things that are more accessible.
And you know, if he's doing that first, then he doesn't need to be paid for this because
he's already doing like the rest of us do.
He's already got a bread winning thing that is positive contribution to the community.
And then he happens to because he loves the community be able to do this.
And that's sort of the hard thing about, you know, about the there's so few like podcast
only people who really can make money doing it because the value proposition has to be
there somewhere.
Most of the people who make money podcasting do so on the backs of celebrities and then
then in and of themselves become celebrity.
Okay.
I get where you're coming from.
Is there would you say that there is let me put it this way.
What I see Cyril doing there when he endorsed or provided context to Geraldine's locking
on the thread is that Cyril was forward projecting what you just said, which I think that's probably
what he was embodying when he spoke back to say there's no reporting line here.
Don't want to disrupt their operations.
And there is a much longer post that I sounds like he was projecting that onto a SIP author
as one of the Dow administrators and administrators.
I don't know how I feel about that.
That's the same that's happening to me right now.
Yeah.
Well, that's the thing.
That's the problem.
And I do agree that that's a problem is that if the community is educated in the process
of the Dow, if the community is engaged with the Dow, then you don't need to do that.
You don't need to interrupt these processes.
The community would just end up looking at each other and saying, how many more people
will we bring in?
I mean, I think it's safe to assume.
All right.
But everybody who's voting in the same wants sand to succeed.
I think that's a safe assumption.
Everybody who's voting for propositions in the Dow, these proposals, they want to see
those proposals turn into sand being worth more.
I'm pretty sure that's the case.
So if you're looking at this proposals, if your people are engaged, your people are here.
Right.
So, you know, like one of my reasons is that every single name that's coming up in the
chat, I recognize that's one of my reasons for continuing to do this.
Like this conversation right now is happening for free because I care about these people
in this chat.
You know, that's and I'm serious about that because there have definitely been times where
like like, oh my God, I was playing in the last game, Jim.
I don't know if the results are public yet.
Yes, they are.
I did that.
I was playing someone's game and I went.
Wow.
Life made me Paul Paul life made me they use both usernames.
Their games have just gotten so much better than and progressively.
So over the years.
And so those people, you know, that's that's that's my incentive for doing stuff like this.
Hear that?
Hear that audience.
If it weren't for you, he wouldn't even he wouldn't even respond back to me.
You said no, no, it's literally responded.
It's not like like like I'm in the middle of interview process for the CM position for
the Dow itself.
And I'm like, Lancer, let me hit you up like we're caught.
We're talking it to in the freaking morning.
My time.
I'm like, I know.
I know.
That's that's why you were a great pick.
That's why you're a great pick.
Well, you you're community management.
It is what it is.
Yeah.
And hopefully one day the folks in charge from all aspects will recognize that I am
passionate about this community and I care about its people and I care about its future
success until such a day comes.
I'm going to continue to be cordial.
You know, because because I have feelings, Chad, I have feelings about this.
He's a human, you can see I'm being kind and caring because I care.
That's the other half of the reason why is that half the reason is I want to see San
go up.
But my main motivation is I want this community to be healthy, educated and engaged.
I want to do my part in bringing that about.
I don't want to look.
I don't want to look at this and say I did nothing to help with that situation that would.
I mean, I just I don't I don't have it in me to stand aside like that.
It's just too much of business, community, gaming altogether.
Like this is it for me.
This is it.
Yeah, this is where I want to be.
All right.
So what I think I heard something that made sense to me about this case study, which is
where Cyril said he projected into their disturbing the current operations of the sandbox team.
And he specifically called out that because there's no reporting line, because the Dow
isn't subject to the sandbox game by virtue of the author being subject to the sandbox
people, that it was now unacceptable for the SIP to proceed.
And the thing that came through to me on that is if the community was engaged and educated,
then you wouldn't need that sort of disruptive, interruptive element.
No, that that that projective element that Cyril did there.
I think that's I think also, you know, this is a problem that will solve itself, because
as you mentioned, the team that actively manages the Dow is quite small.
You've seen it in the forums.
Otherwise, you see more names, right?
And you and we don't.
So one of the.
I'm not sure how much of an interview I'm allowed to disclose on a stream.
Well, anyway, I was I was.
Let's be safe and disclose none of it.
Yeah, OK.
That's fair.
I want to protect you on this one.
I.
Yeah, it's good.
Yeah, that's fine.
I mean, the.
I forgot I lost my train of thought.
I could have pivoted that had my brain.
It was about how Cyril was projecting the same boxes.
Oh, so this problem, the education element, I think, solves itself in time with a community
manager and assuming that community manager understands the process, then that's a big
assumption.
It clears up.
This clears up over time.
If you're watching the sandbox team, you you need to have someone in that place understands
the community with which they're about to engage.
If you put someone in who is not San Fam right now, you will be you will be handicapping
that person and us at the same time.
So Crafter.
And Joseph.
Excellent picks.
Like you cannot go wrong.
And this he's not paying me to say this.
You cannot go wrong.
Joseph being the community manager, like of all the people.
All right.
I appreciate I appreciate the the pitch there.
Nonetheless, we'll see.
I'm sure it is my genuine opinion that the administrators of the Dow aren't the ones
who need to change their mind.
So I don't think the people who are.
That's fair.
All right.
So that's I think that came through loud and clear that if if the community was educating
gauge, which really is to say if we saw the leveling of engagement already with the quorum
and everything else, those are the variables by which you can judge.
Maybe we wouldn't have had to need to say that.
I don't know right now.
I'll buy that for now, but that that's going to quickly wear out its welcome with me.
Yeah, no, I mean, and that's fair.
I think we're like if it's me, we've already put the cart before the horse.
Right.
How are we on SIP 12 without someone that is in constant communication and education
about the process of proposing a SIP?
Right.
Like we shouldn't have had we shouldn't have SIPs in discussion that are coming in the
U.S. dollars basis at all.
We shouldn't have SIPs that have gotten passed in U.S. dollars basis.
That should have been avoided before we even got a SIP.
There shouldn't have been SIPs one, two and three before the community knew how they were
going to work.
And it's a it's an operations process that really could have been done better.
And now it's it's getting caught up.
Do it.
Go fast.
Get someone who knows what they're doing.
Get them out there to have the conversation.
Get them engaged with the community.
Get people excited about doing this, you know, and it's a.
Yeah.
Okay.
So where do I stand on this now?
Okay.
I accept the rationale that if the community had displayed, let's call it not acceptable,
but consistent levels of engagement through quorum, so through through through voting
so that quorum wouldn't be an issue.
Then the right amount of discussion would have taken place on this SIP to the level
that Cyril and to that the Dow team wouldn't have needed to intervene.
Because even if we had somehow decided amongst our our own San fan community that, yeah,
actually we don't want this person to be or underneath the the marketing team, there would
be so much discussion around that that the rationale would be obvious to whereas right
now there there was discussion, but not near the degree that I think Cyril and the Dow
team wanted to see and say, all right, this is something that's defensible.
Well, so here's here's what I think good engagement looks like.
Just to be clear here, if if this is done correctly, then not only would you have discussion
that says, is this valuable, but you would have also had people say, well, if we can
do it for crafter, then we can do it for this person in Italy.
And if we can do it for this person in Italy, we can do it for this person in Korea.
And why do we only care about the English speaking market that should be part of the
conversation?
Because these folks need to have as much education and exposure to the product as anyone else.
And you know, like how much better would your show be if you had a translator for you in
three different languages?
Excellent.
Yep.
Somebody French and Mandarin right away.
Maybe even Korean or Japanese.
I've been I've been looking at the metrics as far as who's been looking at the podcast
and who's been downloading them, which countries they come from.
Yeah, absolutely.
I would use that.
So it's funny that you say that.
Some of those I would agree with.
I would probably disagree with France.
And I don't know if you've ever seen this, but there's a famous image that they used
it in.
I think it was the Second World War.
It was like a plot map of all the spots where planes had been shot before they came back
and landed.
Right.
And initially, it was suspected that the planes should be armored additionally in these places
where they have the bullet holes.
But the reality was the planes that were shot in the other spots didn't make it back.
And so your areas of opportunity are places where you're not getting clicked, where you're
not getting hits right now.
Right.
That's the language is you need translate.
It's like a mind blown.
That's a shower thought moment right there.
Yeah.
But that's and again, this is a difference.
Like when you get, I've again marketing background, like where do I want my exposure to be?
I want it to be in markets that are hot.
So yeah, like Chinese.
Great.
Let's do it.
You know, Korea, you know that there's a big put and this is where the collaboration with
the sandbox internally can be useful to the Dow in the, you know, why should a community
manager for the Dow be integrated with the marketing conversation with the sandbox?
Well, if we know there's going to be a season of content event that's exclusive to Korea
or we know that Seb is going to go to a conference in Turkey tomorrow, that should be part of
this conversation.
Get those people attached and engaged when they're excited and fresh.
Get new people in, you know, it's, it can make a big difference.
But anyway, yeah.
So multilingual again should have been part of, if you're really engaged, if your community
actually cares about your Dow, is they would be bringing up things that you wouldn't even
think would be a problem.
Cause you'd be like, crafters, great crafters getting views.
And they'd be like, I know this guy over here is getting 80 views and crafters getting 20.
You know what I mean?
Why not this guy out of China?
No, that's yeah, that's awesome.
Autism of the crowd, there's many different ways to, to capture that.
That makes sense.
I get what you're saying there.
I've chose, I chose France because that's where the Dow, the sandbox team is.
So there's, there's a certain level of incumbency that I'm, I'm, I'm giving there, but yeah.
But they don't need it in French.
If you're doing business, you're speaking English for the most part.
Yeah.
And also the UN, the two language of the UN is English and French.
So you know what?
Yeah.
Makes sense.
Point taken.
Okay.
I, so I think, I think I'm good with that for now.
If I, if, if I start seeing them do this six months from now, I'm going to be a lot less
charitable in my interpretation of that.
I think.
And I am very wary of the administrative team for the Dow disrupting the voting process
of the Dow.
Anything that does that to me is you need to be, you need to be tread very carefully.
You are not a substitute for the voting community at all.
So this to me, the, the, the locking of the thread that to me was, yeah, that, that to
me was an eyebrow razor.
But the fact that serial went into explanation when we opened up a thread in the help desk
to say, Hey, can you please provide some context here or reopen it?
That to me was exactly what I would want it to see.
There's rationale there.
The rationale can be reasonably construed for now that the lack of education and engagement
that we're seeing from the Dow community is in some way forcing the hand of the Dow team
to provide some sort of substitution, no substance, some sort of substance there to compensate
for the absence of the conversations that would take place that would help reg self-regulate
the Dow.
All right.
No checks for now.
I'm telling you, I am, I will be the first and the loudest to be against that.
If I hear that happening over an extended period of time.
Yeah.
And I think again, that makes sense is that would, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy,
right?
It's when your engagement is down, well, there goes your job.
You know what I mean?
Like as someone who's administrating this space, if the engagement is down in your space
while you are in the administration, you are doing a poor quality job and it will be eliminated
because it's a limited funding mechanism.
If people don't care about the Dow, they're not going to potentially vote to approve new
financing for the Dow.
We all had to vote for SIP 1, SIP 2, SIP 3.
What happens when SIP, you know, 85 is year two Dow financing and nobody votes.
You know what I mean?
Like you're just not getting paid and you'd be out of a job.
So I believe that the people who are administrating this space are financially incentivized to
work with the community to increase that engagement.
I'm still uncertain about that hope, but I'm glad I take your hope and I will embody it
for now.
There's too many things bouncing around.
My own experiences being a SIP author and all of the discussions going on.
I don't fully trust my experience to land on the reasonable approach that you've articulated
thus far.
And to me, that makes sense what you're saying.
I want to give them the benefit of the Dow.
It's colored by real time discussions, right?
Because it feels personal.
Like they're saying my SIP shouldn't be there.
Like why?
Why is that?
The Dow should be deciding that.
And then there's just, but I get the Dow team is trying their very best and I'm actually
super happy with the discussions that are taking place.
They're not just coming out and saying, no, you're not going to get that SIP out there.
They're saying this is our approach.
What are your thoughts?
They're just continuing that.
Like every time I say yes, but I disagree here and there.
Like, well, here's our approach.
What do you think of that?
That's just, it's extended.
And I'm happy that the discussion is taking place.
So there, right there, I'm going to be doing my own podcast on this one where I go into
depth about the process and everything else.
And I'm just trying to make sure I do it in a responsible way.
It's not about like airing all the dirty laundry and name calling, all that sort of stuff.
Not what that's about.
But it needs to be clear that if you submit a SIP, don't expect it to just end up in special
counsel's hands.
Some of mine are two, three months now and engagement.
And this is because this is with a professional team where it's been my career to write proposals
and negotiate contracts.
And even I'm encountering these sorts of extended challenges.
So good times.
I'm happy for the process.
I'll stop in there.
Case study C. Oh darn it.
Case study C was blockchain events 2024.
This one was one of the past three that did not make quorum and it failed.
All right.
So I interviewed chips from hermit crab studio.
He was the one who graciously gave me the time to explain their point of view.
But this was actually a collection of many different studios, all wanting to be separately
funded by the Dow to go to different events.
So Singapore, when I just happened last week or two, there was a big blockchain one in
Brazil.
There were others in like one Hong Kong.
So there were like six different events that were being requested.
And chips came on to explain hermit crab studios position, couldn't speak for the rest of them,
but could speak for them at least.
And originally the the sip did not include much Dow education.
They were going to have the normal sandbox game where you could come play it on a on
a PC.
And then they have all the posters and this is what sandbox is.
And this is what hermit crab studio is doing within that all that.
And then about midway through it, chips asked me, but no, one of my questions was, that's
right.
I remember now who the source of that, if that person would like to self identify themselves,
they can.
But the question was that what is this doing for the Dow?
And would there be me?
What was that?
I'm pretty sure that was also me.
That was exactly you.
Yeah.
So the person who recommended that question is the person that I'm talking to right now
was Joseph.
And what was that?
What was that question?
Let's look it up.
Right.
So there it was.
Here it was right there.
How much is your attendance at these events centered around the Dow versus the sandbox
or your studio?
Right.
So the question at the tart was, if the Dow funds you, how much are you going to be proclaiming
your own hermit crab studio stuff?
How much is it going to be sandbox stuff?
How much is it going to be the Dow?
And to Chip's credit here, Chip said, well, we didn't originally envision it to be the
Dow, but I'm willing to take suggestions on how we can do that.
Right.
So this is this is right over to the right here.
That's chips talking about.
And he's receiving.
He just asked me, what do you think?
I would love to try and make this because it's not just I'm still trying to figure this
out as a business development for hermit crab studio.
And then I proceeded to give him my feedback.
I didn't expect him to ask me that.
Actually, I wasn't prepared for the question.
So then over the course of the interview, basically bore out that.
Well, if you were to take things that are already poster ready on the sandbox, Dow's
website, like the vision, like some of those stuff, you can just poster it out and create
big old posters like right next to the sandbox to say, here's what the sandbox is.
Here's what the Dow is.
Here's how much money the Dow has.
And here's the voting process.
You want to submit a SIP.
Here it is.
The Dow has a website that makes this super easy.
Like under vision right here under vision is vision number one, one community, many
parts.
Number two, working with impact empowerment stuff that looks pretty posterable, right?
Marketing material and under the about section.
Here's the roadmap.
Nice, easy stuff you can blow up on a poster.
So I basically recommended if you were to create some marketing material that equaled
the marketing material you did for the sandbox, then I think the Dow would feel acknowledged.
Right.
So that was my opinion based on the real time feedback.
So, case study C, based on the blockchain events and my interview with with chips on
how much should the money given to you be about the Dow and it's coming from the Dow.
My response was make easily discernible material that you would bring for the sandbox, but
make it Dow centric.
So it doesn't have to be all of it, but I think I said like 50% of it.
Like if you have a poster for the sandbox, make a poster for the Dow and make it one
of these these web web pages that's very easy to blow up on a poster.
Right.
Then you've acknowledged that would be my perspective on how much should should this
be about the Dow.
Joseph, what do you think?
Okay.
So I'm just running some quick numbers, right?
That's always good.
I always like that intro.
We talked about crafter, right?
We talked about crafter.
We talked about what's the value proposition of crafter if crafter is going to be a streamer.
So let's talk about just just the first three because I just popped them out real quick.
We're in we're in this zip.
It talks about Singapore event.
Yeah.
We've got a thousand participants expected to go to Nova Smobler Studios.
Okay.
They're going to create some awareness on the Dow with that.
That's cool.
$8,000 for event number one for a thousand people to show up.
That's $8 per person to talk about the Dow.
Can the Dow get people attached for less than $8 per person?
Absolutely.
If they just went through crafter, they're getting it for $1.50.
You know, see how this isn't tracking a little bit on each other.
Right.
Engagement number two, the sandbox official side event estimating.
Let's be graceful and say the top end of their estimate of 300 people show up to an official
sandbox side event.
$12,000 for hosting cost $40 per person to show up.
You know how many more people you could get to show up to this Dow and this platform if
you just handed them $40 worth of sand.
They stay here forever.
Out of the Philippines, out of India, just give them $40.
Make decisions.
They would be instant San Fam voters too.
Forever.
Yeah.
They'd never leave.
Wow.
You changed my life.
They sold half of it.
Whatever they pay in Vietnam.
$20 goes a couple of weeks of eating.
Just hand them money.
You know what I mean?
We don't have to do this.
I think.
I think it's a lot is all I'm saying.
It's fine.
It's cool.
Okay.
Hong Kong, Blocktober, $20,000 request for roughly a thousand participants.
Again, $20 per engagement.
And these aren't attachments.
And that's another thing that's important in marketing is attachment rate is roughly
like an engagement is to say you saw it and you know, 10 out of every hundred engagements,
you know, maybe they actually pay attention to it.
One out of every hundred clicks through and of those, maybe one out of 10 of those stays
for a long time.
And your retention is a different metric that we can't track with all this money that the
Dow would have potentially spent on this venture.
Now why did they come up with this idea?
Well, because almost every single studio, including the one that you talk to, has been
funded to this degree by the sandbox game directly in the past to represent the sandbox
as a community developer because they're just good devs, right?
They're good devs.
They know how to talk to these folks.
They're good representatives in the community.
But I happen to believe that in literally every one of these examples, the value proposition
isn't there because what you usually do as a business when you go out to these events
is you don't just stand there in the booth.
Yes, of course you go to the booth, but most often you have someone in the booth while
you also have press media, while you've spent time outside of the event, soliciting yourself
so that these guys can go out and write a story on a website.
And that's what you pay the $40 for.
You don't pay the $40 per person usually to get the general consumer to pay attention.
You spend $40 to get the journalist to write to their hundred thousand person audience,
to write to their multi-million person audience.
And that's where you get value out of a conference.
Most of the time you have to go beyond the show floor.
Everyone just happens to also be at the show floor.
Exposure on a grander scale.
Yeah, absolutely.
You know, like, let's talk about, I have press media badges in a box somewhere around here.
I've done it.
Penny Arcade Expo, it's a local one here in Seattle, PAX.
Some people know it.
And at that expo when I went as press media, there was no presence for Atari on the show
floor at all.
But I had a meeting with Atari in a hotel three blocks down to write the articles about
what they are making under NDA to be released on such a day.
You know what I mean?
So, fun fact, in a previous life, I used to write articles for a game as well.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So we have, you know, we have that tracking.
I think I've written 40 articles that have appeared in gaming sites.
That's cool.
Hell yeah.
Mostly for Planetside too.
But yeah, that, that.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
Well, the anyway, I understand what you're saying, right?
That's sort of what we're missing.
That's a component of what we're missing is on this pitch.
It's saying, cool, we've got number five, Meme Fest.
You expect to have a thousand people visit the booth, but somehow also at the exact same
time, all of those thousand are new sand holders.
This is on number five.
As like literally the only bullet point, their expected outcome is having a thousand people
show up and a thousand people care.
And anybody who's ever done any type of marketing knows that's literally not the case.
You again, 99 of those people don't give a damn.
And 10 people out of that thousand will care.
And then, you know, how much, how much can you do from there?
So you've got to get the word out to more people in a better and wider position.
If you want to have a, I think, do you want to have a Dow pitch pass?
That said, you got 75%.
Yes.
So obviously there's, there's a, there's, I again would defer this down to like the
education component of the Dow that I would like to see improved is getting people to
better understand how to stretch their budget because the Dow budget isn't that much.
And it's running out.
Like you said, what 12% already spent, right?
15 as of the past two sips.
Yeah.
So 15% of this budget is gone already.
And it's only been here for, you know, a couple of months and a half months.
We don't know that it gets refunded.
We don't know that these get funded.
So the goal should be when we're thinking about which sips we're going to pass that
we actually generate revenue towards the Dow in the long term.
Which is one of my sips.
Because if you don't generate revenue towards the Dow, then the Dow dies.
And what are we doing here?
If we don't generate revenue towards the sandbox as a platform, then the platform dies.
And what are we doing here, right?
So we should be using our voting power to maintain the health and welfare of this platform
and not just use the voting power to take money and go do cool stuff.
And I don't mean to like dilute that sips down to that, but that's what it ends up being
is most of the money is facilitated.
Like one of them was like by a bunch of ASUS, ROG handhelds and AI laptops, right?
But the sandbox already goes to events and already has those.
So the sandbox doesn't need the Dow to do that.
That was for Singapore.
Yeah, that was for Singapore.
Buy Republic of Gaming handheld devices and ASUS AI laptops for attendees.
Yep.
Got it.
Yep.
And it's one of those things where you don't want, again, you don't want to fund, I think,
projects that are just going to take away and not contribute enough to recoup that expense.
So if I'm spending overall, you know, $94,500, a marketing budget generally should be like
five to 10% of your company in terms of like expense, which means that this event, if it's
successful, should generate net revenues toward the sandbox or in this case, the Dow of between
them, a million to $2 million.
And do you believe, right, that your however, let me see, a thousand participants, 1300,
2000, let's say 3000, because that one doesn't have a number, 4000, 5000.
Yeah, 5000 estimated, 5000 estimated people are supposed to generate a revenue of 12 million
or $2 million towards the Dow potentially or the ecosystem in order for that to be valuable
in the traditional marketing stance.
So I don't, I personally don't think that that would happen if they don't have the outreach
where they get with every journalist in the region and, you know, get that out there.
But that's an aside.
I'm going to be doing a podcast in probably the next few weeks with, it's named Derek.
You and him are probably get along very, very well.
You are extremely analytically driven.
Derek is from the eight point Dow and he's pretty much like the math genius.
So when I do that, I think, I think I'll send you the link because I think you would be
very impressed with the way he goes about quantifying eight point Dow impacts.
Yeah.
Sure.
Yeah.
That was fun.
I was just yesterday on BOTB in the Twitter space, listening to him explain the mathematics
behind how the eight point Dow is as of this moment operating in the negative.
Yep.
And he was, he was drawing from the quarterly reports and all sorts of stuff.
And I was kind of tracking to that because the numbers were just too lopsided on the
out, not enough end, but he quantified it yesterday and no uncertain terms.
Yeah.
And again, the question kind of comes in.
I'm sure Derek's answering it in ape, but if he's not quantifying it in ape and he's
quantifying it in US dollars, then that's a different dynamic.
He's quantifying an ape.
Yeah.
See, that's no way get out of here.
Right.
Like it's got to be net even if you're not generating that even ratio that you're obviously
always going to have some ventures that lose money.
Right.
But generally speaking, this place here is going to have to generate an even number of
sand as it outputs.
Otherwise it's not going to work because it won't be able to be here.
Despite the fact that it's decentralized, it is going to have to operate as a business
in order to succeed.
And so you have to give something people find valuable in order to receive your revenue
stream.
Yeah.
I have two.
So my two flagship steps right now, one is sando and the second one is the Dow revenue
option study.
So I have on tap some people who are highly, highly specialized and trained in this sort
of thing to give us some actionable plans for how the Dow can earn revenue.
And it's pulling a whole bunch of different people.
But right now it's still going back and forth with the Dow team.
But I took that page, that lesson came from what I saw in the 8-point Dow going on right
now.
Like if we do not come up with the strategy to bring in more than we're outputting, we
are going to end up in the same position they are and it's going to hurt.
It's going to be embarrassing and painful.
We might as well just fix it now while we still have the benefit of sandbox giving us
a commitment to yearly budget.
You need to figure it out right now.
Not two years down the line when we see money flying out the door or sand flying out the
door.
So do it now.
Engage the industry-wide specialists who know this stuff already and then throw in some
new stuff like tokenomics or blockchain specialists.
But give them business finance people, economists, people who know traditional financing and
then Web 3 layer on that.
And then you have a solid diversified revenue plan.
Execute it through SIPs.
Boom.
See how start measuring performance after that.
But anyways, we'll see if the community agrees with me.
Just as a train coming, you either prepare now or you get prepared later when it hits
you in the face.
Cool.
So I think what I hear you say is for with my underlined portion or die education.
All right.
So whereas I said I think it's fine as long as they create marketing posters and impact
equal the sandbox game.
You're just not seeing the mathematics equal out there for paying too much or too little
of a gain or that Dow money to make sense.
I'll give you another example.
New York City 2022.
Huddl Hill was there.
Huddl Hill and I have a great story in this event.
The sandbox game rents out a whole ass building in New York City for an event.
This was in when?
This was New York City.
NFT NYC 2022.
And the in that event, the sandbox spent about one hundred and fifty thousand US dollars
for that single event.
Right.
Sounds sounds great.
Sounds sounds like it's a lot of fun.
Four different three different three or four different doesn't really matter.
Open bars, drinks are free.
See Bayoke.
He's on the stage.
DJ Tiesto.
He's a different night.
You know, we got it all popping off.
There's three nights of fun during the daytime.
Use the building for demos and showcasing of the product.
Use it for a like annex building so that people can come through and talk about the stuff
that they built in the sandbox or whatever panels.
Right.
Be centralized, finance, all that kind of stuff.
So we host some panels.
We do all this stuff.
But the fact is, at the end of the day, how many people purchase a ticket to NFT NYC?
Because over those three nights, I can tell you that almost all of them came by and drank
an unlimited number of drinks at the bar.
Right.
Because they're free and landowners get in as a priority.
Right.
And capacity of the building is what it is at that point.
But you're you're owning your land was your ticket to get in.
And Hill Hill messages me, you know, like, hey, trying to get in.
I'm like, go to the back door.
I'll let you in.
Don't worry about the line.
Like, it's good.
And I go to the back door and there's some old dude there and he pissed me off because
I've been there all day.
Like I'm literally like the staff.
I've got a badge.
It's over here.
Got a badge.
It says I work here.
Hello.
I paid for you to be there.
And this guy says she can't come in.
Nobody can come in.
I think it was a day Aoki was there.
And I was like, this is some bullsh.
I was mad.
I was heated.
I take her around the front.
We I walk her straight up to the front of the landowners line because I'm like, I know
she owns land.
And the guy goes, you can come in, but she can't.
She goes to the back of the line.
And I was like, this is like who hired you people?
I'm here.
Hello.
Anyway, nonetheless, all that said, one hundred fifty thousand dollars.
What five thousand people and thousand people.
Fifteen bucks ahead.
To do it's got to be less than that.
I don't think that many people go to NFT NYC.
Was it worth it in the end?
Could the money be better spent in another way?
Probably because that doesn't even count getting into the conference and what it costs to put
up the thing.
It said the little caption says had 16000 people attended from over 70 countries.
Yeah, there we go.
So if it's 16000 people and all of them attended the event, then 10 bucks apiece.
Right.
And is that the best use of money when you could market better?
Probably.
Yeah.
You know, it is what it is.
But you know, it was it was interesting anyway that the way that they looked at things early
are sort of the same kinds of I think I would say mistakes that you're looking at now, because
among the people who showed up for those events, how many of them are still here today?
How many of them were still here a year later?
Right.
Asking the hard questions.
Yeah.
Asking the hard questions.
Sandtoken pumped with the rest of the market altogether.
And that's good.
You know, and the PR overall for the sandbox was already good, though.
I'll tell you another fun story and why I think that was a waste of money then.
I'm standing outside to get my regular tickets for the regular show.
Right.
They're prepaid for, but I just got to pick them up and there's a queue and this lady
walking by with a dude and he's got a big ass camera and she's got a microphone and
she goes, we're just interviewing people in line and I'm standing there in a suit.
So she pauses on me and she goes, hey, hey, what are you?
Who are you?
Where are you from?
What are you here with?
And I said, oh, my name's Joseph.
I'm here with the sandbox game.
And I go, do you know what that is?
And she stops the interview and she goes, everybody knows what that is.
And I'm like, and we spent $150,000 on an event here when everybody already knows what
it is before we even started.
Like are we wasting money?
Probably.
You know what I mean?
And I think that's that's again, that lends to the way that we should be voting when we
think about things in the Dow.
We should be thinking about things that boost the infrastructure of the ecosystem.
We should be thinking about ways that devs can make more money so that the devs do the
marketing for us.
Right.
And not spend the money from the Dow that could be better served on fundamental functions
because the people who pay attention to the Dow, the people who vote on the Dow, this
is not disparaging because it's me.
We're nerds.
We care about the ecosystem.
Right.
Yeah.
We care about the fundamental.
We care about the tools that are necessary to make this place work.
And if we care about that, then we can let somebody else spend the marketing dollars
to go to events and say built on the sandboxing because they'll do it automatically.
OK.
So that brings us to the ultimate question.
Oh, no, I'm having difficulties.
One second.
All right.
There we go.
Should people who get money from the Dow be allowed to answer to the sandbox instead of
the Dow community?
OK.
What do you think?
I happen to believe that the person who signed my check is the person I'm answering to.
Right.
I think if the people are voting for my measures, then I'm answering to the people.
Because if I fail, I don't fail someone who's inside the sandbox game.
I failed the community.
And if I succeed, I'm succeeding to the plan the community wanted.
And so, you know, for better or worse, sometimes the community is going to make poor decisions
with the money.
But if the community is engaged and educated, it will learn that that was a poor decision.
And then we won't do that again.
And you know, as you said, with the sandbox sort of literally giving this Kickstarter
level money, it's an opportunity for the community to learn.
But if we don't have someone who can educate this community, then we're going to end up
throwing a lot of money in a fire exactly like the ape Dow did and is still doing until
people get passionate, educated and engaged.
So short answer.
No, I don't believe that TSB should be able to tell the Dow what to do.
But that's because I care about what the letter D in Dow stands for.
Yeah.
What do you think?
I am I'm on the fence.
The first the first three cases, the case studies made sense in the light of.
Risk mitigation.
I just flipped my words there.
My letter.
That's funny.
Risk mitigation.
Say we said risk mitigation.
In the middle of progressive decentralization, just quickly becoming a word that's losing
its meaning.
But I get I get the concept.
And then the new pair create a new paradigm where the Dow is authorizing expenditures.
Should people who receive money from the down?
Let's just say SIPP authors.
Get money from the Dow be allowed to answer the TSB academically.
I say no, they should not be answering to TSB instead of the Dow community.
And I'll say in reality, yes, for the next six months.
Yeah.
But for the time where we are in mid transition, where the Dow is not able to act act responsibly,
it has doesn't have its own agency right now.
But the Dow to not have its own agency to me tells me that if the Dow were handed these
brains, it would be like giving.
Between a 10 year old, 10 million dollars and go to Las Vegas, maybe 10 year olds wrong
word, 16 year olds, right?
16 year old, 10 million dollars and go to Las Vegas.
What good do you think is going to happen there without any sort of parental guidance
of any kind?
I'm OK with that answer for the next six months.
At the end of next six months, I expect the Dow community to have matured the point where
it can responsibly handle those tasks and those responsibilities in a way that is.
Separate and distinct from the Dow team, administrative team and sandbox game company.
And I'm going to do everything in my power to educate, communicate the A's in this Dow
to bring us to that point.
And not just my little portion of it.
Yeah, well, I think that's a.
You know, just because you have it up on the screen, it's interesting that you mentioned,
you know, the.
The difference and why we need that distinction to change over the next six months, as I said,
the person who signs my check is the person I'm answering to.
Right.
So if the Dow is not the if the community is not the one signing the checks of the managers
of the Dow.
And again, this is that middle group, right?
So that middle group I'm talking about, this administrative group that wasn't.
Or maybe they are.
I guess they are.
They are.
But where does the next round of funding come from?
Right.
And I believe that until we come to December.
Well, no, I know that.
But where does it come from?
Oh.
Right.
So who do they answer to the community?
Or the sandbox?
Right.
Legally, the answer is clear.
Legally, practically and in reality.
The source does matter.
Right.
And that's that's what I'm saying.
So if if the Dow has to continue to be funded by the sandbox game and not by its own means,
if we don't solve that problem as a.
Yeah.
No, that's a good one.
That's a good one.
Yeah.
They're going to always work for us.
For them.
Right.
And so we can solve that problem as a community.
But we have to put forth sips that don't just extract.
We have to put forth sips that can contribute so that we can create that revenue stream.
You have to put forth plans that say this is how the Dow profits from this venture.
If we can do that, I think we solve this problem.
OK.
I'm really like the revenue option sip is is all of my business acumen in that sip.
I've got professional teams on standby partnerships with open campus and all sorts of stuff where
I'm bringing in every expert I can think of that will be value added to producing a realistic
plan for the Dow to start system income so that we are solvent.
I will put all my professional energies into that.
And there's a lot of other people who are good at this who can make that happen.
But it's not closed off.
So if anyone believes that they can be that person as well, when it goes to public comment,
I want to hear it.
The team isn't set in stone.
It's just I know who I want.
If there were no one else presents themselves.
One of them is one of the top consulting firms in the world just because of context through
professional life that I've made.
So that we have to be solvent.
We are not solvent.
Just take a look at some of the other DOWs and we will be them if we don't you don't
establish a good way forward right now.
That's my opinion anyways.
Just me.
All right, man.
I think I think we answered that one.
Okay, I didn't see any community questions that we haven't already answered.
We did answer a couple along the way.
Did we answer that one?
Let me check.
Which one?
One from Don Son.
Oh, Donson.
Yeah, earlier.
Yeah, I think you're good.
You answered almost right away.
Oh, okay.
Yeah, it was.
I wonder.
Oh, there we go.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Shoot, where did I had it?
I got this nice little, got this nice little pin button now that shows on the screen.
There we go.
Donson wonders how many tedious business functions, which may just end up as a sip.
But wouldn't generate enough interest to generate votes one way or the other, but are nevertheless
critical.
And then the second one was I wonder what rate of sips die in the first review versus
special counsel versus makes it to vote.
Is that data available?
Kind of.
Cyril posts the the the sips each week.
He hasn't for the past week or two, but he normally posts a backlog of sips.
You can see which ones drop off.
And like Kyril's, the creator first, you saw how that one dropped off.
And then later on, it became known that dropped off because of the negative receipt for you.
So you can track it that way, but it has to be done manually, like in the same way I'm
tracking the checkbook manually.
Do you have any more insight into that or any other different answer?
Not sure the way that sips die in first review, but I would definitely say that in terms of
things that you think are small operations needs, when you are drafting a sip, it is
your entire job as a sip, a sip proposer to draw out the urgency of why this exists.
And again, if the community is just generally engaged anyway, then it doesn't really matter
how small you think it is, as long as you recognize it as an issue.
And then you've got people recognizing it as an issue.
You just, you know, if the discussion board section says, yeah, this is a problem we need
to fix.
It may seem small, but small sips are good.
Small sips should be passed.
And I think small sips can be passed.
In fact, it may be easier to pass the small things than it would be the big ones, because
you won't have debate.
Like I think is the case with your window resizing option.
If that was proposed, I think people would go, yeah, I'd like to, I'd love to not be
full screen anymore.
You know, that's the feedback is getting right now in the forums.
It's really simple.
It's not that complicated, because for me, if I'm working on one monitor, if I'm working
on a laptop, right?
Usually when I'm developing a game, I've got a notepad of like a thought tree going down
is that gives me notes on what this NPCs motivations are.
And it doesn't actually like I don't write out what I'm writing in their narrative, but
I'm writing what their motivations are and having the conversation be fluid as I'm writing
the narrative.
So I can go that character won't do that because they're afraid of cats.
Right?
Like, it's just not going to happen when we get into they possibly going into the jungle
or something like just coming up with this off top my head.
But if I had the ability to not have this thing be full screen, then I could actually
have my notepad on the right instead of having to print out a piece of paper.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
You know, it's for me, it's the assets and the other windows be next to Vox said it like,
yeah, yes, it's the same thing.
Yeah, with Vox said it right.
Like if you had finalized an asset and you just wanted to make sure you had consistent
art design, you're going to probably have that another one in theme on the right.
While you've got your I'm working on this over here and you could be working on it and
go, okay, I forgot to save the color palette.
Something so simple, right?
You just go like, okay, I'm looking at that.
I'm looking at this.
That is the same.
Yeah.
And then with magic palette about to come out because it uses magic of voxel or Vox
edit and is a big enabler.
You're going to need that even more now.
Yeah.
Two different services need to run together.
Yeah, no, makes sense.
I did have I did have an open topic if we wanted to get to it, which was actually be
the Dallas involvement in the sandbox said mentioned twice.
One at me about AMA a few weeks ago and one at the fireside chat and NFC Lisbon back in
May, I think was that his goal was for all decisions that they're making internally in
the sandbox in company will be progressively handed over to the community to decide.
And that's for Cyril started talking about progressive decentralization.
How realistic do you think that that really is?
I say realistic as in so Seb, I thought when he when we interviewed, I and he said that
to me, I told him that that's a bold goal, but I'm behind it.
The logistics of it, as I think through the mechanics of.
Yeah.
What do you think?
OK, well, I'm going to change my battery so I won't be able to hear you for a second here,
but I'll give you my best.
Boy, how do I answer this without.
Like the most pragmatic answer is correct one here.
Of course, it's going to get progressively decentralized.
They're running out of money.
Right.
He said they were cash solvent.
They are cash solvent.
Absolutely, they've got 20 million dollar funding around from Animoca on top of the
sand that has not yet been distributed, 40 percent of which goes to operations.
Right.
So, yes, they're absolutely cash solvent.
But until again, the fundamental is fixed that they're getting sales in the marketplace.
Their operations are not a net positive.
They're cash solvent, but they're losing money hand over fist.
Right.
Like they're spending whatever it is at peak.
I think it was eight million dollars a year.
Maybe that's what it is now.
I can't.
I haven't done the math.
About eight million dollars a year if I was to guess on payrolls and operations.
So if they got a 20 million dollar funding round, that's another two and a half years,
plus the sand that they already have.
So we can add another two years to that.
We got maybe a five year on top of their original five year roadmap where they are solvent.
Sure.
So then, lending back to the question, progressively handed over to the community to decide, it's
really a question of, you know, over time, as they're trying to maintain sustainability
of the central portions of the company, some of those roles just won't be able to be centralized
anymore.
And so they'll come to a point where they're satisfied with VoxEdit and they'll kill all
the positions of VoxEdit.
They will change VoxEdit to be open source software.
That means there's no devs in house anymore.
That's not an expense that they have.
They'll come to a point where the game maker software is sufficient in their opinion and
it will become open source software and all of those staff members get fired.
They'll come to a point where, again, as I mentioned earlier, it'll really just come
down to the only critical operations people are going to be the absolute, like just Seb,
basically.
And then people who operate the infrastructure of the platform that he doesn't understand.
So you'll need a few people maybe in PRs, marketing, whatever.
You're going to need a few people to be able to manage the dashboard, which is what they
call the website.
Skeleton.
I mean, yeah, but that's not a negative thing per se.
It's when you talk about, again, I've mentioned it a hundred times, sufficient decentralization.
Sufficient decentralization is targeting having almost no one centralized.
It's targeting firing everyone.
Right?
Basically.
It's not that seems rude and wrong and bad and it sounds terrible.
I'll tell you, it sounds awful.
But when people say we should be making the decisions about the sandbox, you're saying,
great.
So the person who's employed right now to make those decisions is wrong and they should
be fired so that you can make the decisions in the community because it's, it can't be
both.
Right?
You can't have what you're talking about with these SIPs.
You can't have somebody screening the SIPs and also have it be sufficiently decentralized.
So if you make it sufficiently decentralized, you fired the guy screening the SIPs.
Got it.
But we don't want to think about it like that as a community per se.
But that's essentially what is being said here.
Again, the original plan was to do that.
The original plan was after five years, we would have had the sandbox on mobile.
We would have had a sandbox on desktop.
We would have had sandbox on consoles.
And then it would have been open source software.
So that means nobody has to work on it anymore.
They would have done their job with these five years and this money.
And then they would have left.
That was the plan the whole time.
Hmm.
So this is kind of fulfilling the plan in a roundabout way, taking into account all the
delays and challenges that have been.
Yeah.
Like, let's assume that their extra funding round helps them fulfill the intentions of
what was a five-year roadmap.
And now they've added another five years.
Well, the funding source wasn't the people.
It wasn't you and I.
We didn't hand them cash per se.
The funding source was originally the dissemination of sand.
That'll get fully decentralized and then they'll use the budget that they got from Animoca
brands.
Right?
They'll have sold all the sand and they'll use the funding from Animoca brands that US
dollars cash to continue to operate.
And again, the critical mass that is the sandbox is getting to a point of balance where they're
making enough revenue off of the marketplace sales to offset the staff that they have.
And a measure of success would be to not have to terminate anyone.
But the only way that's possible is getting that 300 million plus that I've mentioned
a couple of times, right?
In total sales.
Because otherwise they have to fire people.
However, as a measure of success, that's only a measure of centralized success.
Right?
Because they can keep the centralized infrastructure and it is a hindrance against decentralization.
So the community, you know, the community is either the community basically has to pick
a lane, right?
Because I think a lot of people are going to say they want to see it decentralized.
Of course, yes.
But they don't want to see forks in development, right?
It's unhealthy for there to be five different versions of the game maker.
And it's impossible to support five different versions of the game maker via the client.
Unless you make five different versions of the client.
And where are you going to publish those games?
It can't be on sandbox.game.
If you make games in game client version seven, you know, you have to have a community that's
decentralized working together on a central plan in order for this place to continue to
grow and succeed, even if there's no sandbox game.
Okay.
Anyway, complex, right?
This is the convergence that we've been talking about the whole time.
I know you and you look at it from more of a technical.
Game side standpoint, I look at it from the business end.
How does a Dow run a for-profit company with a board?
How does it fulfill the presidency and the treasurer and all the sorts of things we know
now or starting to know now how a Dow gets sued?
That's been happening.
Yeah.
It gets sued as a person.
There's an answer.
And it's interesting.
The way that the infrastructure is built right now is actually mostly like a nonprofit company.
Yeah.
I read all this bylaws and everything.
Yeah.
But it's if you're operating as a nonprofit, there is still a profit line.
You look to break even, right?
And break even includes expense of the people who work there.
So you're making profit in that you're able to pay the wages of the people up to whatever
it is, $250,000 a year per person.
So the company again, yeah, it could make profit, but really it shouldn't look to make
profit, more so look to pay payrolls and have a balance sheet of 365 day revolving balance.
That would be the measure.
Yes, but not the sandbox.
If we end up assuming all the sandboxes responsibilities, we'll be effectively running a for-profit
company.
Yeah, right.
But that's OK.
Let me restate that the sandbox isn't making money.
They're not for profit.
They're not making any profit.
The sandbox might not be making money, but they're still for profit.
They're not not for profit.
I'm pretty sure about that.
Well, they're not listed as a non-profit company.
No, no, no, no, no, they're not.
But they could be like the the Dow itself and how it is incorporated could operate as
a in the same format as a non-profit.
The foundation itself is structured in the way that it is construed.
Yeah.
So it's not legally on the books as a non-profit, but that doesn't really matter because like
when you go to file for your taxes as a business, you really just have to say I didn't make
any money and I had these expenses or I did make so much money.
But when I made that money, the expenses offset it by this degree.
And then you pay your taxes and you do whatever.
It'll matter when they come to the U.S.
I mean, it does.
But you can still file as.
You know, what money did they make in the United States?
That's a different thing.
I do it for our company.
So I understand like the money that I do it on the corporation side.
I know what matters there.
Yeah.
I mean, it's it's difficult, but that doesn't mean it's not doable.
You know, true.
Like I'm looking at a Dow, though, a Dow that has to vote through SIPs on these things.
Like let's hope that the people who vote for the SIPs don't say I hate the treasurer, kick
them out.
You know what I mean?
That's right.
Like you need an expert.
But that's the nature of it, isn't it?
You know, if again goes back to the education component, if the people aren't educated,
they don't have to be Harvard graduates to understand why it makes sense.
You just have to be willing to talk to them.
OK.
Yeah.
OK.
So I'm I'm hopeful.
I'm uncertain.
There's too many uncertainties that I don't think of burn itself out yet in the global
international stage.
There are many uncertainties for sure.
Yeah.
Like I think it's fascinating that a Dow got sued by the U.S. government.
Yeah.
Getting sued as an individual, I think they could probably get it tossed out depending
on how their bylaws are written.
Well, they know they won.
The court case won.
Yeah.
But in a court of appeals is what I mean to say.
OK.
Like, yeah, I don't think the Dow that Dow is I don't think they're that organized to
put it in the.
Yeah.
All right.
Yeah.
Well, that that was just an interesting thing that popped up that I've heard said twice
now and then I guess three times is on the interview we did where he confirmed it.
And just to think about how company for profit or not for profit is run in a central Web
two way.
How then does that happen in a decentralized Web three?
That's kind of that makes me a little nervous.
Think about all those all those obligations you have to pay and being flexible enough
with the right leadership team to responsibly handle those duties and not end up in court
because you don't pay on time or.
It just yeah, that's odd, but that's cool.
That's another thing.
That's another thing that pops up to write is if you choose to not trust anyone.
Right.
Like, let's assume that you don't trust Lancer with legal fees here.
And how does that process work?
How does legal not legal fees?
Legal legal proceedings and interpreting them, then you're probably going to pay an agency.
Yeah.
And then it's a question of are we going to allow an agency to price gouges down to have
them on retainer?
Right.
And then what is their value?
Yeah.
So you have to make sure that again, the Dow not just earns enough to pay individuals individually,
but earns enough to overpay individuals just in case you want to start to outsource things
and then you get that markup.
You know, it's a fun game.
I'm hopeful that we can get through at least the revenue options.
That way I can turn out a real revenue plan that identifies income streams that I would
then probably need to sip each one into existence in whatever fashion it would end up in.
That's the way I approach it with the sip.
I want to do the study first, figure out what's reasonable, reasonable based on experts who
know the game.
And then once we start accruing that revenue, then we start our working groups and our and
then we'll be forced to answer, how do we the sandbox Dow want to account for those
things?
Can't just hand it off to the Dow admin team and expect them to do whatever with there.
There's going to be some sort of governance structure I expect would pop up as a result
of that.
I'm looking forward to it.
That's where I want to go with all this is how do we become self-sufficient?
Right on.
Well, I'd say what, three and a half hours in.
I think we're ready to bring it home.
Yeah.
Sure.
Is there anything other open topics you wanted to talk about?
No, man.
I mean, future episodes are good.
I like what you got coming up.
So I'm just excited to, again, be in the conversation, hang out, chat.
It's nice to see some great engagement as we're going through here.
And hopefully this gets out there to as many eyes and ears as possible because again, we
are at that convergence where the centralized and decentralized are going to slowly mix
up and be a little messy.
But we're nearing the end of the plan or the original plan that is.
So this is where the fun begins.
Yeah.
I just realized I had my dates all wrong.
This is where the fun begins.
The fun's been going on for quite some time, but we need help.
Help more people come see what we're doing because we're Joseph and I and all the people
who are involved in the Dow.
We don't want to be the only ones speaking on this.
We don't want to be the only ones trying to put four sips.
If I am the one who puts in half the sips, that would make me sad.
I don't want there to be some sort of perception that I'm just like flooding the market with
my sips.
That's not it at all.
I'm excited, but we want other people to have these competing ideas because in that, the
best answer will emerge from there, like the marketplace of ideas.
So thank you for helping me work through this, Joseph.
I feel a lot better about this whole situation.
I think I can articulate it now better.
I'm going to end up stealing some of your words that I've written down in the slides.
Sounds great, man.
Thank you.
Yeah.
So later on today, we'll be interviewing Crypto Diplo, who's the author for SIP number 13
and getting to know his NFT crafting and drop SIP, which a lot of studios seem to be in
favor of right now.
It's very technical.
I kind of understand it.
You basically get to airdrop NFTs from the game into people's wallets and then crafting
an NFT, so like if you put in wood or whatever and then it will craft an NFT into your wallet
from the game's actions.
I think that's where you wanted to go with that.
And Pepe came right out and said, absolutely do this.
I think I saw Touche as well.
There seemed to be some immediate positive feedback.
So I need to understand a little better just by asking questions.
So a lay person, someone who's not technically savvy can understand what's being asked because
it seems important and significant to the creator community.
So that'll happen later today.
And then some other stuff happening coming up with CityDao and see if I can't get ApecoinDao
scheduled here in the next week or two.
Thank you so much, man.
It was good.
It was good being with you.
So for sandbox spaces, if you want to get into the conversation like us, like we're
doing right now, the few different ways you can do it.
Sandbox has on the Discord a DAO discussion sub channel.
The sandbox DAO itself has its own forums dedicated to the DAO.
On Twitter X, there is hashtag SamFam, hashtag sandbox DAO, hashtag the sandbox game, and
also follow the tweets coming out of the sandbox DAO.
You'll see myself and a lot of other people in those Twitter threads talking back and
forth.
And then during the week on Mondays, Mochaverse Hall, Mondays at 9pm Eastern or 10am Korean
Standard, that's Mochaverse, Sandbox, Forbes, and Apecoin.
And then there's Bulls on the Block on Saturday, which is 10am Eastern or 2am Korean Standard.
That is ApecoinDao and Sandbox.
And then Coffee with Captain Monday through Friday, they mostly talk just ApecoinDao.
But if you show up as a sandbox person, you can always propose an agenda item to be discussed.
And the hosts will talk about that.
Whale members, so one of the largest landowners in the game is the Whale.me.
They do natively digital every Tuesday.
They will also talk about sandbox.
And then Sandfam Cafe, which is hosted by Bruno, otherwise known as Pickaxe Master.
He hosts monthly podcasts and interviews.
I think weren't you on one not long ago, Joseph?
You know, maybe.
Yeah, maybe at this point.
But Sandfam Cafe, he might be putting them on pause.
But as of right now, I think were you on one with AU24k?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So it was like last month, I think.
So he still does them monthly.
And they're more of like on the creator side of the sandbox game side, whereas Sandow podcast
mostly centered around what's going on in the Dow and all the things that intersect
with us there.
So all right, man.
Last thing, who should we raid?
Who is online?
Who's who's readable?
Yep.
Still knows everybody we raid, you know what I mean?
Are you about to go on?
I don't I'm looking at the it's just me.
I'm the only one on right now for sandbox.
Let's look at friends.
So if you see someone on your friends list, you want to raid, shout them out.
I'm looking and.
What's that?
Username J cluster.
J cluster.
Who's that?
One word.
They're playing a game called Big Time.
It's Web 3.
Raid J cluster.
Right.
Just that.
Yep.
OK, so we will raid J cluster and then outro ourselves out.
Make sure I got the name right.
Big time, big time showdown grind begins.
Yep, that it.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah, sorry.
All right, so we start the raid and OK, how to hell says J cluster is a Web 3 gamer in
front of San Fam.
All right, so the raid countdown has begun.
Joseph, thanks for your time, man.
I really appreciate you applying your critical thinking skills.
All of this.
Yeah, anytime, as I said, whenever you like, be the last time we discuss.
A hard topic, but it was it was challenging to work through it and not at all obvious
what the answer should be.
And we are definitely not the only ones talking about this.
Please get involved.
Vote.
There's a sip going on right now that would could use your help and we'll hit the raid
button.
I would take the floor.
Yeah.