Hello everyone, Sandel Podcast number 33.
Today is going to be about the Medium article that the sandbox team posted about a week
ago and it is published on the sandbox team medium, but it's written in the voice of the
DAO admin team, so I'm pretty sure this is written by the DAO admin team.
I'm going to be doing a reaction of it.
It's called progressive decentralization, SIPs in the sandbox DAO.
It's like a status update of the past five months that the DAO has been active since
May and some of the things that they intend for the way ahead.
So the scope of the talk is today's about the news, the DAO news, and then some commentary
behind that.
I had a number of things that I pointed out in the article.
I posted everything that I'm about to go over in the discussion forum under sandbox DAO
general, and in the general, if you scroll down, you'll see my post called discussion
on DAO teams medium article, and that's for I'm about to read from.
Some other DAO news that happened is the new communications manager was revealed.
Bobby Kunta, who's been an ambassador for quite some time, I covered him in Sandow podcast
32 reacting to his intro video.
I loved it.
I love his mindset.
I love where his head's at, and I look forward to seeing the many things he said unveil where
Sandfam will work it out together.
So he introduced himself in the general tab, a general forum on Sandow, general forum on
the sandbox DAO forums called introducing myself as the DAO's new communications manager.
So check that out full of good info, his goals, everything else that's going on.
And last but not least, take a look at the sandbox DAO YouTube channel, which is where
his first channel is Kunta's first video was.
You're going to see it there and you'll be able to hear from him yourself.
And if you go to Sandow podcast 32, I play his video and then I also react to it.
So today though is about the medium article.
And the disclaimer is that I do not represent the sandbox game or the sandbox DAO foundation.
I am not your financial legal advisor and nothing I say should be taken as financial
or legal advice.
When I use the word SIP, I mean sandbox improvement proposal.
When I say the word DAO, I mean decentralized autonomous organization.
When I say the word SAMFAM, I mean everyone in the sandbox community who participates
in the people, purpose, and products of the sandbox.
If you want to see what I mean by that, that's basically a sandbox ecosystem, which was covered
on Sandow podcast 31.
And it looks a little bit like this.
So the SAMFAM would be the gamers, game makers, voxel artists, landowners, sandholders, DAO
delegates, participants, sandbox team, and then also to include all the business partners,
Animoca brands, the sandbox company, voters, delegates, sandbox foundation, council, and
working group of the DAO.
That was Sandow podcast 31.
But we're on Sandow podcast 33.
Core board has not changed.
The SIPs have been paused for the time being while the DAO admin team works through the
delegate interviews and chooses who's going to be the delegate for the sandbox DAO delegates.
That brings us to 16 SIPs that are closed.
Nine were approved.
Six have been not approved.
And all of them were not approved because they did not reach quorum.
And one was withdrawn.
The direct book 15.5 million sand has been, is our budget and 2.3 million sand or 15%
of that budget has been spent on SIPs.
We're at 211,000 token holders, which amounts to 2,200 voters across 13 SIPs and who have
casted 9,200 votes.
My name's Lancer.
I'm the Sandow podcast host.
I've been in the SanFam ecosystem since December, 2021.
And I'm president of MetaWorlds where we published Floor Droppers and Lava Defense.
Floor Droppers is now part of season four as Zero Zero should be releasing here in the
next few days.
My professional background is in contract writing, contract negotiation, and program
management.
So the Dell was announced May 28th, so about five months ago, it was announced via a medium
article and a lot has happened since then.
AMAs, SIPs, open and closed.
On October 7th, they posted another medium article, they being the Dell admin team to
update us on everything that they've taken into account since May 28th and the look ahead.
And then yesterday announced the communications manager, Kunta, which was October 14th.
We'll be discussing the medium article today and all of my, all the comments that I noted
along the way.
I'll just be reading through it and then noting my comments on the side.
And that's all I'll be doing to read through.
If you have any community questions, just post them in chat and I will answer.
So the medium article posted on October 7th, it was called Progressive Decentralization
SIPs and the Sandbox DAO, about a seven minute read.
Starts off with, the world of decentralized autonomous organizations is rapidly evolving
and launching the Sandbox DAO has been a careful process.
We've studied the journeys of other DAOs, learning not only from their successes, but
also from their failures.
So I noted, the first thing I noted was there and I really wanted to take a pause to say
that I really applauded the DAO admin team studying other DAOs.
And it's clear that they've put in a lot of effort into the Sandbox DAO, a lot of thought
about how it's structured, how it should be run.
And I want to applaud them for their effort.
And a lot of what I'm going to say, some of it may seem critical.
Some of it may seem skeptical.
I promise it's said with the best intent, leaning forward toward us all being the Sand
fam and I'm offering my input in order to make it better.
I want the DAO admin team to make it better.
I want to make it better.
Most, if not all of Sand fam wants to make the DAO better in some way, shape or form.
So this is my input into that.
A lot of this is both based on my experience, I've been a SIP author.
So I've authored five or six SIPs at this point.
How many was it?
Six.
I've authored six SIPs at this point and submitted them for consideration.
And so I've seen that process play out.
I voted on all the proposals.
And so I'm confident that I have a fairly good handle on what I've observed and that
I'm informed on some of these things and the way I respond to them.
But they're all meant to be positive leaning.
Okay, so the next paragraph in the article.
One common mistake we've seen is the rush to full decentralization, which can result
in a lack of strategic direction, inefficient resource use, and governance deadlock.
To avoid these pitfalls, we've adopted a strategy of progressive decentralization, a gradual
transition that ensures we fully empower our community without sacrificing stability or
focus.
Aggressiveness, my note here was that progressive decentralization is a term that Cyril and
Seb have spoken on quite a number of times.
And I have a note on it later, but the second note I had was in the first part of the sentence,
they said one common mistake we've seen is the rush to full decentralization.
And my remark there was in the DAO admin team study of other DAOs, did they come across
any pitfalls and mistakes indicating too much centralization took place?
And what did that look like as a mistake that they learned from?
The next section in the article is the TLDR.
First bullet is gradual transition and a phased approach help avoid governance deadlocks and
inefficiencies experienced by other DAOs.
Patience and coordinated constructive communication are key to success.
The next bullet, strategic guidance comes from a special counsel.
While the community is represented by an advisory board.
What I noted here was the strategic guidance that comes from a special counsel.
Could the DAO admin team please provide a few examples of past strategic guidance from
the special counsel and to whom that guidance was given?
I don't think I've seen an example of that strategic guidance, so I'd like to know what
that looks like.
The next bullet in the article, the focus is creating sandbox improvement proposals,
slips that benefit the ecosystem, not just internal governance.
Next bullet reads delegation allows voters to pool voting power and amplify their voices
through trusted delegates.
Next bullet, the aim is to build a sustainable inclusive DAO that maximizes community engagement
and impact.
In the next section, learning from the experiences of other DAOs.
Many DAOs have faced significant challenges by decentralizing too quickly.
For instance, the DAO, and when they say the DAO here in this article, they're talking
about the Ethereum DAO, the very first DAO.
One of the earliest and most famous examples struggle with governance issues and divergence
among community members.
The DAO ultimately suffered a catastrophic hack that led to its downfall.
Other DAOs have encountered problems such as poor allocation of funds, but promised
vague returns, often for selfish endeavors, lacking of coherent strategic direction, and
decision-making gridlock.
Too many voices without a unifying strategy led to a stalled progress.
By studying these examples, we have recognized the importance of a gradual process that ensures
stability while increasingly involving our community in governance.
The next section reads setting the foundation, constitution, special counsel, and advisory
board.
Our goal was and is, our goal was and remains to give the Sandbox DAO the strongest foundation
possible.
We designed the constitution, established a budget, and identified top-level administrative
teams and technical solutions to maximize its chances for success.
I didn't note it here in my first round, but as I was reading through this again, my note
here was that this made it sound like the Sandbox DAO admin team chose the special counsel
advisory board.
So that was curious.
I don't remember that being the way that they were chosen.
I thought I remember in an AMA where SEB chose them and not the DAO admin team.
So the next paragraph reads that includes selecting a special counsel to help build
the community and providing early strategic guidance.
This group brings existing networks, connections, and knowledge, making introductions, learning
from prior DAOs, advising on community assets such as NFTs, et cetera, while we navigate
uncharted territory.
The council also plays a limited role in ensuring compliance and alignment with the DAO's principles.
My note here was that it's not clear what the relationship is between the special counsel
and the DAO admin team.
Is there any position that the special counsel does not have authority over?
So that's something that stuck out to me as I read that sentence.
Next paragraph reads that said, we've heard the community's feedback and understand the
concerns that the current council members are not necessarily from quote unquote, SanFam
creators or players of the sandbox game, but reflect more institutional players.
And my note here was that in the beginning of the paragraph, it said we've heard the
community's feedback and I wondered where does the DAO admin team publish the feedback
it acts upon?
I haven't seen that.
And the DAO admin team has received a lot of significant impact from the community and
it'll be really helpful to see some communication from the DAO admin team on what feedback gets
implemented.
Here it just kind of says we've heard the community feedback and understand the concerns,
not that they've done anything with that feedback or what that feedback has meant to them.
And they also mentioned that not necessarily from SanFam.
I do think that I covered this in podcast 31 in the sandbox ecosystem.
The sandbox ecosystem, I think, does include the special counsel.
A lot of them are involved in the special end ecosystem in some way, whether they're
landowners or they own studios or whatever the case might be.
Almost all of them have a pre-existing connection in some way to the sandbox.
But that's not what most of the criticism is.
Most of the criticism right now is that the special counsel has, except for Seb, has largely
been silent on it within the community affairs since the DAO was announced on May 28th.
We haven't seen many posts or tweets from much of the special counsel or the advisory
board.
There have been some who have participated a bit.
Mia Bao has participated, I've seen, and Loretta Chen, both of which we interviewed
in Sandow podcast.
Number 10 was Loretta Chen and Mia Bao was episode 19.
So we interviewed both of them.
And I've seen them involved, whether it be tweets or reposts of some kind, outside of
just podcasts here on Sandow.
So they've been involved.
And then Shannon Snow is World of Women.
Ina Moja is the green, the evergreen, I think it was called, Metagreen experiences.
And Mateus Vivian, Hermit Crab Studio.
So a lot of them have connections within the Sand Fam.
So it's just that we haven't really seen them be involved since the DAO's inception in May
28th.
That's where most of the concerns are right now.
That we're not really sure if the special counsel, what they're doing and how they're
running the DAO.
So that sentence, the way they worded this, understand the concerns that the current council
members are not necessarily from Sand Fam.
Sure, but that's not really what the heart of the concern is.
Okay, next paragraph.
These concerns are why we also established an advisory board, a group intended to reflect
the many voices in the sandbox community.
Advisory board members come from areas, art, music creators that are core to platform and
make it vibrant.
Four of them either own studios or have made games for the sandbox.
We expect the board to be instrumental in ensuring the community is represented and
heard.
And my comment here was simply, can the DAO team, the DAO admin team, please give some
insight into how this is being accomplished, particularly how they expect the board to
be instrumental in ensuring the community is represented and heard and reflecting the
many voices in the sandbox community.
Again, I haven't attended or seen any AMAs from the advisory board.
I'm not sure how, I asked me about and Loretta Chen, do they meet regularly?
And they both said, no, they don't meet regularly.
So yeah, can the DAO admin team please give some insight into how this is being accomplished?
The next paragraph reads, our community is broader than many realize.
And off to the side, Sandow 31 is intro to the ecosystem.
Take a look at that.
I go over just how big the Sandfam really is.
Like I mentioned in the beginning, DAO-based.ai has a record of 211,000 token holders.
That's a lot of people carrying, that's a lot of Sandfam right there.
Both silent and vocal.
Okay, so the paragraph reads, the sandbox community has a lot of contributors, many
of whom are not the most vocal advocates publicly, but contribute to growth behind closed doors.
If you look at any community, even the one just outside your front door, most people
remain silent observers who contribute only when they can in the ways they feel comfortable.
As the DAO matures, it is the role of everyone involved to not just work together to craft
the best SIPs, but also create a space that acknowledges all aspects of our diverse community,
including those who may not be active on Discord or affiliate with the hashtag Sandfam on X.
Let's create a space for all of the peripheral players, including the millions of followers
of the brands in the sandbox can proudly consider themselves part of the fam.
Next section reads progressive decentralization.
Progressive decentralization is designed to balance the sometimes competing demands of
democracy, efficiency, and effectiveness.
And my comment here was, now that the sandbox DAO has been active for five months since
May 28th, is there a timeline for how decentralization will be achieved?
I'd like to hear the DAO admin team's response to that.
And if you listen to Bobby Kunta's intro post, introducing himself as a communications manager,
he noted that that's one of the things that he intends to tackle is to better communicate
that.
Okay, the next paragraph in the article reads, the sandbox may occasionally work to ensure
the stability of this approach.
For now, that could include taking a stance on or using its voting power in favor of or
against particular sips that it believes are misaligned with a DAO's mission or threaten
its long term viability.
My comment there was much of the community.
Hey, not Jackie Chan.
How you doing in the chat?
Thanks for coming.
My comment to this one was much of the community has requested a lot of clarification on this.
As of right now, it's very unclear what the criteria is for the sandbox 27 million voting
power wallet is used for.
Substated in the DAO AMA on June 4th of this year, about 41 minutes and 55 seconds into
the x space, that the sandbox wallet would refrain from being used after it was mistakenly
used on sips one through five.
And if you recall sips one through three were resubmitted and the sandbox wallet did not
vote on its resubmission, but sips four through five couldn't be resubmitted because of a
sandbox, excuse me, a snapshot.org limitation having to do with the account restricting
how many resubmissions you could do.
And so it, it was left voted on four and five, but then it wasn't used until the fourth of
September when it voted on sips 11 and 12 to pass quorum.
So what it didn't do, it didn't vote.
Yes.
Only yes.
What it voted is 33% yes, 33% no, and 33% abstain.
So it basically kept the vote even and the vote are already had the yes, but it only
had about 15 of 30 million quorums.
So it only had 50% and it was about 24 hours of closing.
So the sandbox used its 27 million voting power to vote and reach quorum.
And that was on sips 11 and 12.
Sips 11 was the sandbox ambassador program.
It had a lot of disagreement, even between existing ambassadors.
There was a lot of, a lot of discussion around that one, but the sandbox wallet voted to
pass it.
Excuse me, voted evenly across the board.
It already had a yes vote.
So they just didn't have quorum.
If the sandbox had not voted, the vote would have failed because it wouldn't have reached
quorum.
That's an important distinction.
And sip number 12 was sandbox academy.
It was a community sip, whereas sip 11, the ambassador program was a sandbox company sip.
So it's pretty obvious that the sandbox wallet was used to pass its sip.
Since sip 12 was just happened to be at the same time.
So the sandbox wallet voted on both and both of them passed.
But since then we've had three sips since that time, 13, 14 and 15.
Right.
Let me check, check that one more time.
Had yep, three sips since sip 12 and the sandbox wallet did not vote on those latest three.
So sip 13 was the NFT drop.
Sip 14 was mine.
It was the windows resizing resolution options.
And sip 15 was the metaverse and disability hiring program.
So the sandbox did not vote on those three.
So it's very unclear what its criteria is for use.
And, and my question was, what caused all this to happen?
Please clarify its criteria.
Because the way this paragraph reads that I read on the medium article, it doesn't
specify what its criteria was.
And it's very vague when it says may occasionally work.
Work in what's favor, work in whose favor.
Okay.
The next paragraph reads in the article, in our ongoing mission to progressively decentralized
power and ensure balanced representation, we are excited to introduce delegation.
This feature allows members of the SanFam and the wider community to pool their voting
power and choose a delegate who aligns with their values and vision for the future of
our Dow.
By selecting a trusted delegate, even those who may not have had time or expertise to
vote on every proposal can still have their voices heard through someone who represents
their interests.
It's a great way to strengthen community involvement, giving everyone from the most
active participants to more casual members, a chance to influence the direction of our
ecosystem.
Ready to make an impact?
Apply now to become a delegate and help guide our future or join forces with others to elevate
a leader who speaks for you.
Let's shape the future of the Dow together.
My note here was that I did a podcast episode on the delegation system.
That was podcast, Sandow podcast number 28.
So take a look at 28.
I go over all the details of the delegation system, the application, the interview process,
all of the stuff that stuck out to me as I read through the code of conduct and all the
particulars of the delegation system and being a delegate.
Okay, in the article, go back to the article, the next section read SIPs, strategy and types.
In the sandbox Dow's current configuration, the council and admin team can curate the
proposals received.
This is meant to clarify the ideal structure of SIPs, such as how they should be written.
This will serve as a model for future SIPs.
My comment here was that where it says in the sandbox Dow's current configuration that
the council and admin team can curate the proposals received.
My question was, how does the Dow admin team judge when curation has become excessive and
something that is contrary to a successful and inclusive Dow?
The next paragraph in the article reads, this moderation process exists to ensure the quantity
of proposals is reasonable for the community to review and in line with the Dow's budget.
We also want to ensure the quality of those proposals is high in the service of the broader
community and aligned with the Dow's mission.
Now that we are three months in, we feel the need to reinforce the types of SIPs in line
with that approach.
Recently, there have been a significant influx of SIP ideas geared toward changing the governance,
the visibility reach, the technical stack, or the operations of the Dow.
These SIPs are, quote unquote, Dow centric, in the sense that they focus more on management
matters and less on substantive value adds to the sandbox ecosystem.
My comment was that last sentence there about the Dow centric focusing on management matters
and less on substantive value.
My question there was, how did the Dow admin team come to the conclusion that a Dow centric
SIP is not substantive to the sandbox ecosystem?
The Dow itself has a 15.5 million sand budget and over 2000 participating voters and 211,000
token holders that are eligible to vote.
How is that not, how is the management and the daily activities of the Dow not substantive
to the sandbox ecosystem?
That's not clear to me.
The Dow, the article doesn't explain why.
Okay, next section of the article reads the sandbox centric SIPs in quotations, not Dow
centric SIPs, also in quotations.
Here are examples of ideal SIPs, game content for the game content category.
SIP focus on enhancing the content and experiences available in the sandbox by involving the
community creation.
Bullet one, develop an exclusive experience.
A past ideal SIP for this is the game jam prize.
That was SIP number, SIP number eight, what that was.
The next bullet is success metrics expected, active users, retention, events created or
number of recurring players.
The sandbox for good category, an ideal SIP, excuse me, the sandbox for good category.
These SIPs promote charitable and socially responsible initiatives that use the platform
and its resources for positive impact.
The past SIP, the past ideal SIP referenced here is supporting Red Cross for 2024 and
carbon capture.
So that was SIPs number, SIP number four was carbon capture and SIP number five was the
Red Cross.
Next bullet is success metrics expected for these types of SIPs, community engagement,
funds raised, social impact outcomes.
All right, the next SIP category is NFT, explained as SIP leveraging NFTs to drive engagement,
revenue and partnership within the sandbox DAO or within the sandbox.
First bullet is buying an NFT collection and an ideal SIP is organize an NFT event to showcase
the sandbox.
That was SIP number 10, which was the 2024 blockchain events in Asia and Latin America.
And then the, the DAO TSB collection, I'm pretty sure that's a reference to SIP number
nine, which was NFT collection by Arthmore, which was Arthmore's nomination to curate
the sandbox's NFT collection.
And I interviewed him back in episode nine.
The sale success metrics expected is attendance, media exposure, NFT sales, NFT holders and
return on investment.
The next category is platform.
Its description is SIPs improving the platform's functionality, security, players and creators
experience.
Bullet one is feature requests, product to improve creator efficiency.
And the past ideal SIP is Magic Palette.
That was the first community SIP as SIP number six, that was authored by Pepe from Sandrush
studio.
It is the shining example, the one that most almost all community members agree on is a
good thing that passed.
So that was the first community SIP to come out after all of the sandbox game SIPs from
one through one through five.
That was that when May 28th came about and the DAO was announced, those were the first
five SIPs that were submitted immediately by the sandbox DAO admin team and the sandbox
game team.
So success metrics expected for this SIP category is publishing product or new features in production,
providing usage metrics, time efficiency and retention rate.
So for Magic Palette, we've done like three or four podcast episodes with them, and we're
going to be doing another one here shortly in a couple of weeks when Pepe has the next
iteration of the software ready to demonstrate for the community.
Okay, so something I noted about this whole section within the Medium article is that
these things were all quoted as ideal SIPs.
The Carbon Capture SIP, the Red Cross, Magic Palette, and blockchain events, NFT collection.
Of those five SIPs, four of them were created by the sandbox DAO admin team and the sandbox
company.
Only one of them was a what was quoted as ideal, which came from the community.
Just an interesting note.
Okay, next section in the Medium article, the DAO admin team.
The DAO admin team ensures that the DAO functions and remains transparent, accountable, and
effective in its execution by Bullet 1, communicating about the DAO through events, AMAs, podcasts,
tweets, etc.
Bullet 2, moderating the forum and operating our communication channels like Twitter, X,
and LinkedIn.
Bullet 3, managing workflow of the SIPs, help ensure alignment with the budget, timeline
objectives, milestones, and the mission of the sandbox.
Bullet 4, administering voting.
Bullet 5, upgrading and maintaining the DAO tech stack.
Bullet 6, handling payment, reporting, and compliance.
Bullet 7, maintaining relationships with suppliers and partners.
The community is welcome to propose improvements in the DAO's day-to-day activities like modifying
the website, improving the financial and voting reporting, and connecting the DAO to a third
party system.
The good news is, there is no need to do a SIP for that.
What I noted there in that sentence, there is no need to do a SIP for that.
My question was, shouldn't the responsibility for determining what needs to be a SIP fall
on the sandbox community and the DAO voters?
I thought that was the point of the DAO, for us to determine what needs to be a SIP.
And the voters confirmed that yes indeed, that should be a SIP and a proposal worth
passing.
All right, in the next section of the article reads, community members can simply make a
suggestion through the dedicated discourse channel.
If you click that link there, it will bring you to, in the DAO forums under help and resources
subforum, and under there, the DAO features request subforum.
So it's deep there in the help and resources.
So if you have a request or suggestion for the DAOs, what they consider DAO centric activities,
that's where they want you to make a suggestion instead of building a SIP for it.
Okay, back to the article.
Community members can simply make a suggestion through the dedicated discourse channel to
the DAO admin team, which has full authority to use the operation budget to implement the
request if deemed appropriate.
My question there was, does this create an unaccountable system for the DAO admin team
that could lead to abusive behavior?
The thing that I noted was that in circumstances where DAO day-to-day activities and the established
guidelines do not meet community expectations or those day-to-day activities threaten the
sandbox DAO stability, success, or viability, how does the sandbox community change the
DAO team's activities and establish guidelines, even when the DAO admin team deems that it's
not appropriate?
It doesn't seem like there's a way to hold the DAO admin team accountable to day-to-day
activities and guidelines that are counter to the stability, success, and viability of
the sandbox DAO.
Okay, next paragraph in the article.
To safeguard community resources and ensure SIPs are aligned with the established guidelines,
the admin team will reject any proposals that do not meet these criteria and explain the
reasoning if that happens.
Authors may be offered suggestions for revision and resubmission if appropriate.
My comment here was when it said that the admin team will reject any proposals that
do not meet these criteria.
Does this give the DAO admin team the power to exclude itself from any sort of accountability
enforcement action by the sandbox community?
It kind of runs what I was just talking about a few minutes ago about having the full authority
to use the operations budget and if it deems it appropriate.
Where I noted there that I asked if it created an unaccountable system that could lead to
abusive behavior.
Here in this sentence, it talks about the admin team will reject any proposal that does
not meet this criteria.
They're obviously talking about if it falls in the DAO-centric SIP territory.
This seems like the DAO admin team is now deputized itself to exclude itself from any
sort of accountability enforcement action that the sandbox community team votes or wants
to vote on the DAO admin team.
This new approach that they're detailing here in the Medium article appears to invite community
members to submit suggestions that the DAO admin team has determined that it has the
full authority to disregard without any limitation that I can read here in this article.
I'm not sure if this interpretation is accurate, so I ask is this interpretation accurate?
And if so, how did the DAO team arrive at this conclusion?
All right, the next paragraph in the article.
To help the community succeed during the curation process, here's a list of tips one can follow.
SIP guidelines.
After reviewing the SIP to confirm it complies with the required guidelines and avoids any
prohibitive elements, we will notify the authors accordingly.
And then it has a table here of SIP phases, the do's and don'ts of each phase.
So there are one, two, three, four, five, six phases listed here in the article.
The idea phase, submission phase, review phase, discussion phase, which lasts 14 days, the
team phase, which lasts 14 days, and then implementation phase.
Okay, so in the idea phase, do post your idea and SIP ideas first to seek community feedback.
Do use feedback to refine your proposal before submission.
Do disclose motivations and any personal or financial interests related to your SIP.
As an aside, I love that one.
That one's great.
Do focus on long term benefits and sustainability.
Do ensure your proposal is maintainable and scalable.
Do not post an overly complex idea.
Do not submit self-serving proposals.
Do not repeat content similar to a SIP in voting or implementation.
Do not submit illegal or non-compliant SIPs to the sandbox ecosystem or its community.
Okay, the next SIP phase is submission.
Do submit your application once the DAO team has invited you to.
I'm not sure what that one means.
It sounds like they're saying you can't submit a SIP unless the DAO admin team asks you to
submit one.
I'm not sure.
I haven't yet done a Sandel podcast episode on the newest SIP guidelines and form that
was just submitted.
I'll probably hit that one either later on this week or later on next week.
We'll see.
But I don't like the way that one reads.
That reads is very much, you know, we'll call you.
And I think that's a bridge too far.
But maybe it's just the way it's worded.
That's not how they intended it.
Okay, continuing back in the table.
Do categorize your proposal accurately within the SIP categories.
Do provide a detailed budget and list all expenses associated with your project.
Do clearly outline project milestones with success metrics.
Do include supporting materials like images, diagrams, or references.
Do not submit proposals to sip at sandboxdao.com anymore.
Use the form.
Do not submit incomplete applications.
Do not overlook incomplete or missing documentation.
Okay, and the next SIP phase.
Do incorporate feedback from the DAO council and PM team.
Do be open to revising your proposal based on team suggestions.
Do not ignore constructive criticism provided by the review team during curation.
Do not make changes without communicating them clearly to the team and community.
So we just went over the first three phases, the do's and don'ts, the idea submission
and the review phase.
And the thing that I noted here was in the first three phases, there doesn't seem to
be a limit on the DAO admin team's power to curate and author SIP.
Nor is there any description of when curation becomes excessive.
So what I wondered to the DAO admin team is, is there no circumstance where the DAO admin
team's curation becomes excessive or counter to an inclusive and successful DAO?
It's not obvious to me that it has an end other than when it decides that it does.
So that kind of goes back to in connection to my earlier comment about if the DAO gives
itself power to exclude itself from accountability enforcement actions.
And are we creating an unaccountable system for the DAO admin team, which may lead to
bad behavior that can't be checked by the sandbox DAO community?
Okay.
Then next, going back to the article, the next phase, do and don'ts is discussion phase.
14 days.
Do engage in meaningful discussions with the community during the 14 day discussion period.
Do promote your SIP responsibly by encouraging community participation.
Do provide timely responses to community inquiries about your proposal.
Do not dismiss or ignore questions or concerns raised by community members.
Do not spam or aggressively promote your SIP for votes.
Do not avoid answering difficult questions or feedback that challenges your proposal.
For the next phase, voting, which is 14 days, do actively encourage the community to participate
in the voting process.
Do promote your SIP.
Do respond to community inquiries.
Don't pressure or manipulate community members in favor of your proposal.
Don't ignore key information or high details that could impact voting decisions.
And the last phase in this table is implementation.
Do send an invoice once the PM team validates the milestone.
Do communicate progress and setbacks openly with the PM team.
Do make sure all deliverables are submitted in accordance with the proposal timeline and
milestones.
Do not request funds before completing agreed upon milestones.
Do not withhold updates or delay communication on project progress.
Do not delay milestones without proper justification or advance notice.
Do not deviate from the approved project scope without consulting the PM team.
And that's all of the do's and don'ts of each SIP phase.
So continuing on in the medium article, we've now reached the conclusion section.
Full decentralization is a considered strategy designed to avoid the pitfalls experienced
by other DAOs that rushed into full decentralization.
At the sandbox, we believe our approach underpinned by SIP curation allows us to establish a strong
strategic long-term direction.
By learning from past experiences and carefully structuring our decentralized process, we
aim to build a sustainable, inclusive, and successful DAO.
My note here was that I again applaud the DAO admin team's efforts to look at past experiences
and the other DAOs.
ApecoinDAO, Citidao, CompoundDAO, MochaDAO, now Whaledao, they provide many good examples
to follow.
And there's also lessons learned and areas of improvement that we can glean from them.
So I appreciated the hard work that they put into structuring and implementing the sandbox
now.
All right, and the very last paragraph of the medium article reads, as we mature, we
will keep on communicating and bringing the community into the process, ensuring that
it is informed and engaged as the DAO matures.
We invite all members to actually participate in this journey, knowing that their voice
will increasingly shape the future of the sandbox.
That is the end of the article.
So all in all, my thoughts on this was there were a lot of things, a lot of questions that
I had out of that, as you saw, a lot of questions surrounding what is the limitation of the
DAO admin team's power?
Is there a limitation?
Because it seems like they don't really talk about what their limitation is.
They talk a lot about what they expect, what their power is, what their authority is, but
nothing really that counterbalances that or what the sandbox community can do.
Yeah, so take a look at the article.
It's worth the read.
And also take a look in the DAO forums, the discussion thread going on.
If you have questions there, the new communications manager has gone into it and will respond
so if you have questions, I recommend that you, where is he?
It's right, should be right here.
I recommend that you post your questions in there so that he can get to it, which is Kunta.
He did say a point of clarity.
The medium article is published by the sandbox, not the DAO.
While that's technically true, it seems pretty clear that it's written in the voice of the
sandbox DAO admin team.
Although the one thing I noted that I wasn't quite sure of here at the end, it talks about
at the sandbox, we believe our approach.
I'm not sure.
So the sandbox game company and the sandbox foundation, the sandbox DAO foundation are
two separate legal entities.
They are not the same.
They are not run by the same people.
Although there are, there is overlap.
Seb is on the special counsel for the DAO and is also the co-founder and COO of the
sandbox.
But Seb is just one of many council members and the DAO administrator is not part of the
sandbox, although now he has a sandbox email.
So I'm kind of confused about that.
What is the overlap?
Because we were, in the AMA, we were told that these are separate things, very separate
things.
So that was one question that came out of that.
And something I'll have to respond, update my forum post on, but take a look at the forum
post if you have questions and you like the DAO admin team to respond to you.
Yeah, Yuma says in the chat, at least they know there are people paying attention.
Yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely.
Okay, let's move on to future episodes.
So we just completed episode 32, which is the, or excuse me, 33, which is reaction to
the DAO article.
We did a reaction to the DAO communications manager announcement and Kunta's intro video
yesterday.
So we're now three, two episodes completed.
I'm going to later, later this week, I'm going to be doing either an update on the new SIP
process and application process or a review of the sandbox DAO foundation, the constitution
articles and memos.
What's happening in the eight coin DAO is very relevant to what's going on.
The sandbox DAO foundation is structured similarly to the eight foundation and some interesting
things are happening there that has drawn the eight foundation into it.
So I want to do a review of this and kind of make it clear where I think the connections
are for the way the DAO is run.
So those two episodes are coming up imminently.
And then the next few weeks, we'll be doing a follow up with Pepe from Sandrush on the
latest and greatest from Magic Pallet.
And then I'll start my series of the sandbox ecosystem.
I did the intro to the sandbox ecosystem, Sandal 31.
I highly recommend go watch that.
Everything that I've seen, I packed into the sandbox ecosystem episode.
And a lot of people are talking, especially Kunta and the DAO medium article referenced
how there's a lot of people both seen and unseen.
And in that sandbox ecosystem intro, Sandal 31, I go over the depths of where I think
that goes.
Okay.
And then I'm going to deep dive into each part of what I did the intro for.
So sandbox ecosystem and the creators and the market and the DAO and the gamers.
I'm going to deep dive into it to really hone in on how I think those relationships and
responsibilities are playing out.
Whereas 31 was just an intro, very high level stuff.
Okay.
If you want to connect to the to the SanFam ecosystem, we gather in many different places.
So the sandbox discord and there's a DAO discussion channel among many, many other dozens of channels,
whether you're a creator, a landowner, you can find a place there to talk.
The sandbox DAO forums is where everyone who participates and the sandbox DAO where you
post SIPs ideas and you discuss everything related to the DAO goes there.
And X and Twitter, there's hashtag SanFam, hashtag sandbox DAO, hashtag the sandbox
game and then the sandbox DAO Twitter handle or X handle the newest and latest and greatest
on YouTube.
There's the at the sandbox DAO, which is brand new.
Kunta just posted the first video yesterday.
And then there's also my Sandow podcast, which is at Lancer YT for the sandbox X and Twitter
spaces on Mondays is mocha verse hall on Saturdays is Bulls on the Block Monday through Friday
is coffee with captain Tuesdays as well members at natively digital and SanFam Cafe is monthly.
Thank you all for your time.
Thank you for showing up and hearing this.
There's a lot going on the sandbox DAO and we really need participation, especially in
quorum.
And yeah, today's episode was the medium article published by the sandbox called progressive
decentralization SIPs and the sandbox DAO and my reaction to it.
Thank you everyone.
Have a great day.
You