Good afternoon, everyone. My name's Lanzer. This
is Sandow 70. We've reached 70 episodes. Today
we'll be going over an update to SIP -39, Dow
Pause. This is an after -action report of what
has already transpired. We're just going to be
taking a look into the particulars of what has
happened, and it'll be a little bit of commentary.
I do not represent the Sandbox game or the Sandbox
Foundation. I'm not your financial or legal advisors,
and nothing I say is to be taken as financial
or legal advice. When I say the word SIP, I mean
Sandbox Improvement Proposal. When I use the
word DAO, I mean Decentralized Autonomous Organization.
If I use the word SanFam, I'm talking about Sandbox
community, those who participate in the people,
product, and purpose of the Sandbox ecosystem.
That ecosystem looks a little bit like this.
In the people sector, there's everywhere from
gamers to the Sandbox team. In product, we have
everything from the game client to the DAO itself.
Purpose is the white paper and all the expressions
of that in Sebastian Bourget, Arthur Madrid,
Yatsu, and now Robbie Young. And all that makes
the ecosystem go round and round. Today's episode
is about the DAO itself. And if you want to learn
more about the DAO, kind of see a gamified version
of it, go to the DAO Education Hub located at
2 -154. It's on the bottom left corner of the
map, right next to Jurassic Park World. You'll
see Sandbox DAO, and inside the Sandbox DAO,
you can click for the DAO Education Hub. So,
my name's Lanzer. I am host for a Sandow podcast.
It's all about the Sandbox DAO. And I'm also,
I lead the MetaWorlds group, which we have done
quite a number of sips. And we built the sandbox
DAO education hub, the one we just showed you.
And yeah, generally floor dropper, some other
experiences like that. So SIP 39, some context
starts in Sandow 67 when we do a reaction, the
announcement of the DAO pause, then in Sandow
68. We interview Sebastian Bourget, co -founder
of the Sandbox and global brand ambassador. This
is part two of our interview that we started
with him back in Sandow eight or nine as a special
council member. Then in Sandow 69, we do a review
and read through of the SIP itself. Talk about
the particulars of what it's trying to say, what
it wants to do. And now we're in Sandow 70, an
update of the DAO pause. Now that the... vote
has ended and the results have been tallied a
little bit of brief history uh back in august
2025 tsb realignment starts tsb is the sandbox
realignment starts with uh arthur did and and
sebastian bourget departing their positions as
coo and ceo of the sandbox and ushering in robbie
young as the new ceo robbie young was the investment
lead of Animoca Brands. Was, is, unsure which
one. And it was first reported by the big whale
in August, and then was quickly seized upon by
other news outlets like Gaming Daily, Telegraph,
Queen Telegraph broadcast. A number of statements
were made out after that, kind of tampering things
down, saying it wasn't a hostile takeover. Because
Animoca Brands already owned the Sandbox, which
we investigated that and revealed it back in
Sandal 34, birth of the Sandbox DAO. And then
Robbie Young came out and did an X -Base, spoke
a little bit on podcasts and articles, Blockchain
Gamer and stuff like that. So gave his idea of
what the vision would be. And you can take a
look at Sandal 67. Reaction to the Dow pause
where I cover those AMAs and back in December
and the one last month in February. So that happened
all started on August 2025. Then we covered and
Sandell 67. Also, we covered the December 2025
AMA with the new CEO, Robbie Young. I just realized.
So sorry. I had his name. He fixed his name.
It's not R -O -B -B -I -E. It's R -O -B -B -Y.
I'm so sorry. So we're going to fix that. Okay.
And December 2025, there's an AMA with the new
CEO, Robbie Young. Covered that. That was the
one that had a recording with which we could
look through and... hear his vision for sandbox
3 .0 then in uh we did a little bit of diving
into his linkedin where it showed he was the
ceo investments at animal brands been in a sandbox
position for about six years now in some sort
of director capacity so not new to the sandbox
then we covered the ama in february 2026 with
the sandbox team and the dow administrator over
sip 39 unfortunately the replay bug struck and
we were not able to view the recording of that
although i was there listening in person and
i covered my thoughts resulting from that and
then this ex post by sebastian talked about sip
39 and wanted to recognize the contributions
of sanfam to the ecosystem and reiterated the
Sandbox 3 .0 vision, mainly centered around corners,
sand chain, and some AI and mobile components
that are inbound and going to be launched. So
that led to Sandbox 68, where we interviewed
Seb, and we talked about how the special counsel
and advisory board maintained a low profile in
the past. One half years, they were in the elected
seats, which they were elected in SIP 1, 2, or
3. The very, very beginning of the DAO back in
May of 2024. And then with the benefit of eyesight,
was there any decisions you would have done different?
We also covered the AMA and if you could restate
what prompted SIP 39 to pause the DAO. Then we
talked about the term expiration of the Special
Counsel and Advisory Board. and if he was able
to give us some insight into what led to the
postponing of those elections. Then we talked
about the Dow pause and discontinuing the special
counsel and advisory board and why that was the
preferred path. We then delved into what insights
he could share about the sandbox's decision to
use its voting power. There will be some particulars
about that that we discovered in the way it voted
in step 39. And then the situation, how it was
natural fear to feel fear and uncertainty and
what he could do to comment on that situation.
OK, and then in Sandow 69, we did a read through
of the SIP itself. But while it was had just
started undergoing voting and noted some particulars
about some things that that stuck out to me.
Mostly the SIPs that were being canceled, how
the ecosystem was rapidly evolving, and consolidation
of resources and a pausing of SIPs. Go back to
Sandow69 to listen to that read -through. And
what didn't make sense, which is why they wanted
to pause the DAO and limit resources when they
could do that already, since DAO administrator
could just slow the SIPs down. not invite any
new people which was already happening long before
this sip was introduced they were heavily curating
uh the the sip process and we kind of explained
that in sip and sandow 69 where we we compared
the old process back in may 2024 when it was
a free and open where anybody could really submit
a sip then the the new sip process that happened
in October 2024, which elongated the process
and made it more of an invite -only process system.
Covered that in episode 35, Sandow 35. and we
briefly covered the kind of an accounting sheet
that i'd prepared that went through all of the
sips and what their cost was i'm going to delve
more deeply into that in the next episode sandal
71 where we do a review of the sandbox dow now
that uh 39 sips later looks like the dow's gonna
be paused for the foreseeable future and we uh
did a little bit of i had my own calculations
that i shared via the forums and x zero came
back and responded with with his perspective
on on how he believed the final number to be
more about nine hundred thousand dollars versus
mine was was closer to four million dollars where
we started with six or seven million dollars
we'd spent two million dollars so I projected
that we still had $4 million left. However, Cyril
projected $900 ,000. And most likely that's due
to volatility, the differences between our calculations.
But I'll go over that in the next episode when
we review the sandbox DAO. But let's get into
today. Today is a review of SIP39 and the results.
We're going to be going through three sections
of Snapshot, the overview, the votes, and discussion.
And here is an ex -post by the Sandbox DAO, which
talks about how they published SIP 39, and it
was back in January 28th. The SIP outlined a
pause of the Sandbox DAO SIP intake, programs,
and operations to create space to reassess how
governance can best be support. ecosystem as
the sandbox 3 .0 evolves so that happened now
let's take a look at the snapshot and we will
record our notes as that happens so if you go
to snapshot go to the sandbox down sip 39 here
we are it started february 10th and it ended
february 25th About 10 days ago. And the results
were yes. Yes did win out at 80 % of the vote,
56 million. Abstain was about 11 % of the vote
with 7 .6 million abstained. And no was about
9 % of the vote with 6 .3 million abstained.
It's not going to take long for you to realize
how suspicious those numbers are. It's for good
reason that there's suspicion there. Quorum was
definitely met at 233%. Quorum was only 30 million.
But because the Sandbox DAO voted, it reached
Quorum. All right, so let's go to... So that
was the overview. And again, go back to Sandow69
for a read -through of that. All the stuff that
this SIP was about. So we're going to go straight
to the votes here and start looking at how the
votes tallied. So right off the bat, you see
here is a vote for 53 million voting power, which
accounts for 75 % of the vote. It was a yes vote,
and that is almost certainly the Sandbox wallet,
which Robbie Young had specified in the AMA from
February that the Sandbox intended to vote. It
voted yes, but it voted with 53 million, which
is way more than it's usually had. Normally,
it clocks in about 27, 28 million voting power.
So imagine most of our surprise when we see 53
million. And it didn't take long to figure out
why that was. So if you go through here, all
of the voting power you see, the well -doubled,
they abstained, and they had about 7 .6 million
VP. I voted for no, that we should continue the
DAO and that it's possible to continue governing
as a community while still meeting the budget
conscious needs of Sandbox 3 .0 as described
by Robbie Young, who's the new CEO. I still feel
that we could have continued the DAO and we would
have been able to meet all the cost objectives
that were needed. So, yep. And then Shanti voted
for yes. He did want to pause the DAO. He said,
there's a lot I want to say, but I think we should
revive the project first and then start over.
But he had 2 .6 million voting power, which right
away didn't tell me that something was wrong
because I had forgotten that he had more than
that. However, so KCL voted no. He wanted to
pause the DAO. And he said that was because the
decision was taken behind closed doors and whatever
the community decides, TSB will go against it.
They already removed their voting power delegation
to official delegates. And that's what tipped
me off that something was wrong because I didn't
realize that KCL, I knew KCL had way more than
2 million. I think he clocked in like 5 million
whenever he voted. So when I saw that 2 million
and then I saw his, his explanation here that
TSB removed the. voting power delegation to official
delegates, that's when it clipped for me how
the Sandbox wallet was voting with 53 million.
That's because there were 12 official delegates.
And if we go to sandboxdao .com, when that pops
up, uh -oh. Is the website gone? I just was at
the wrong website. So sandboxstyle .com, not
the sandbox style. If you go to delegation here
at the top here, you'll see in the delegation
dashboard, there are 12 delegates. Hidden Walls,
Shanti, Cotrato, Ravi, Mofat, Sabga, Biversanart,
Moez, Hishmad, Secret Meow, Batman, Hervé. We
interviewed most of these in earlier Sandals.
But if you start looking at the voting power,
you'll see a lot of them start dipping below
2 million after the third one. And it becomes
very obvious very fast that the voting power
here was taken from these delegates. Each of
them were granted 2 million voting power by being
official delegates of the sandbox DAO. And here
you are with MoFat having 448 ,000 rather than
2 ,448 ,000. SEBGA had 300 ,000. Fiversant, 158.
Moez, 61. Hishmad, 41. All the way down to Hervé
with 5 .4 thousand rather than 2 ,540 ,000. So
that's 24 million voting power that the sandbox
DAO took from the 12 delegates and added to its
own wallet. So that immediately skewed the vote
to almost a certain yes. And it made a lot more
sense why we're seeing 53 million voting power.
They didn't tell us that they were going to do
this. It feels really shady and really disappointing.
It's a really bad look that this happened. Not
sure why they decided the need to do this. Actually,
yes, I do know because we were able to do some
math to figure out what would have happened if
they had not taken delegation away. from the
official delegates. Anyways, we'll keep going.
There are 33 votes and all. KCL, as I mentioned,
voted no. He wanted to continue the DAO because
of the closed -door nature of the decision. I
agree with that. SEBCA said 40 % yes, 60 % no,
and that's in French. Let's see if I can translate.
Here we go. Translating to English from French,
he said, Sebka said, no shutdown desired. Agreement
on the fact of suspending the new SIPs for the
duration of a reorganization. Shutting down the
DAO would be a step backwards. Question is, what
to do next? And he voted with 460. He was a delegate,
so he should have $2 ,460 ,000 rather than $400
,000. Kami, a well -known voice, voted no. Vox
Machina Studios also voted no. Hishmad voted
yes. And Unidentified Wallets voted yes, yes,
yes, yes. And Secret Meow, another delegate,
voted 50 % yes, 50 % abstain. Batman, a delegate,
voted no. Schwartz. Schwarzenengel voted yes.
Axura voted no. OXDigger voted no. Malamaya voted
no. An unnamed wallet voted yes. LeoFat voted
yes. Two unnamed wallets. One voted no. One voted
yes. DancingSweater voted no. His reason was
keep the sandbox the sandbox. Borden8 voted no.
The parliament voted no, said that this proposal,
this is a proposal that includes no single word
about no option. In democracy, in order to propose
something, you should equally inform expected
results of yes and expected results of no, so
voters can decide transparently. I just voted
another no and another Dow, and it looks like
we are experiencing a no season of the Dows.
Handing over entire projects feels not right
to many people. Time will show, but I hope. Soul
of Blockchain wins. That was Bparlin. UnnamedWallet
voted yes. Sineva voted no. That's a really cool
name, by the way. Zulu voted yes. Mo voted yes.
FeeFeeReeFee voted yes. That was a fun name.
And RedLilyRose, also well -known in the community,
voted no. And VitalikBTC voted no. So there you
have it. The 33 votes. The vast majority of people
voted no, but the no as in continue the DAO.
But Sandbox's wallet voted yes to pause the DAO
and they had 53 million versus the no's or 6
.3 million. But there is something peculiar about
that that we're going to go over right now. So
as shown. It was created February 10th, ended
February 25th. The results were, yes, 56 million,
80%, abstain 7 .6 million, which is 11%, and
no, 6 .3 million, which is 9%. The 14 -day period,
that was normal. Glad that they let it go for
14 days. However, that 56 million versus 6 million
was highly suspect from the beginning. And we
were able to... Snapshot .eth covered it as well,
which is really cool to see how they talked about
the Sandbox DAO voting to pause their DAO indefinitely.
That was really, really nice of them to cover
this. So here it is. Let's do a little bit of
math. So the Sandbox DAO wallet, or the Sandbox
wallet, voted 53 .1 million yes to pause the
DAO. All right. So that was SIP 39. And it was
immediately suspicious because in SIP 11, when
it last voted, it voted with 27 million voting
power. So they they normally they don't they
didn't vote. It was a policy for the sandbox
not to vote on proposals. And this time they
decided they want to vote for it. But you can
see the huge disparity. All right. So what would
have happened? And that was because they took
24 million voting power from their delegates.
And added it to the sandbox wallet. Yes. So we
did a little math. I did a little math. Went
to the delegate dashboard. And compared with
the votes. Who was actually going to. Who voted
yes. Who voted no. And by the way. While I was
there. Let's go back to the website. While I
was there. Discovered that if you scroll all
the way down. Normally there is a. A video here
of delegations from the official Sandbox DAO
YouTube channel. That's where Digging the Sand
podcast is. The video was unavailable. And when
I looked at the channel itself, it looks like
the channel was removed, deleted. So the Sandbox
DAO official YouTube channel is gone. Making
my podcast the only Sandbox DAO channel left.
So I started before the Sandbox DAO podcast,
Dits, Digging the Sand, started. And I'm still
here after they ended, which is interesting.
But in any case, that was fast. I didn't expect
that that was the case. But, so, let's go back
to the math. The Sandbox DAO voted with 53 million.
It added, and it did that by adding 24 million
voting power and taking... 24 million voting
power from the delegates so one two three four
five six delegates voted that meant six delegates
did not vote so there's your 24 right there and
added it to itself so let's do a little math
to figure out what would have happened uh what
would have happened if if the 24 million voting
power had been given and kept with the official
delegates, assuming they voted the way they did,
and you can use that as percentage to allocate
all of the voting, how would it have happened?
How would the vote have gone? So, like I mentioned,
Shanti, he voted yes, so that's $2 million for
yes. KCL voted, Cricciotto voted no, so that's
$2 million for no. Sebga voted 40 % yes and 60
% no, so that's 800 ,000 yes and 1 .2 million
no. Ishmad voted yes, so that's 2 million for
yes. Secret Meow voted 50 % yes and 50 % abstain,
so that's 1 million for yes and 1 million for
abstain. And Batman voted for 100 % no, so that's
2 million for no. So if you put all that together,
you've got a 48 % leaning of yes, a 43 % leaning
toward no, and an 8 % leaning for abstain. By
the delegates. All right, so it's slightly, slightly
yes favor, right? Not quite 50 -50, but it is
pretty close there. Half the delegates seem to
want to pause the Dow, the other half, slightly
more than half, want to continue the Dow. So
if we apply that to the remaining six delegates
who didn't vote, that would be 5 .7 million toward
yes, 5 .1 million toward no, and 900 ,000 abstain,
which is the division of that remaining 12 million.
So if we apply that math to the voting result,
56 million on yes, 6 .3 million on no. And we
take away the 24 million. So we're going to do
that by 56 million, yes. So take away that whole,
if we deduct the TSB's vote, which is 53 million.
All right, that leaves 3 million yes. If we add
in the 24 million voting power by the delegates,
that would be 11 .5 million for yes, 1 .9 million
for abstain, and 10 .3 million for no. I remember
the sandbox wallet. Shouldn't be voting. That
was been the policy, the official policy by Seb
Bourget for forever. So that's why we removed
the sandbox wallets vote. So that without the
sandbox wallet vote, only 3 million voted yes.
But if you add in all the delegates per the percentage
that we just went over, 48 % yes, 43 % no, 8
% abstain, then you would end with 14 .5 million
yes vote. 9 .5 million abstain vote and 16 .6
million no vote. So that would have been a 36
% yes, 23 % yes, and 41 % no. The no vote would
have won. If the sandbox wallet hadn't have voted,
if it hadn't have taken the 24 million voting
power away from the community, the no vote would
have won, which would have meant the sandbox
DAO would have continued. So it's very clear
the community wanted the no vote. They wanted
to continue the DAO. So I thought that was really
fascinating. So kind of our takeaway there was
that SIP39 would have failed without the sandbox
wallet's 53 million vote. The sandbox style revoked
24 million of approved delegate voting power
and added it to itself, the sandbox wallet. Digging
the sand, YouTube channel videos are no longer
available. Deleted account. So there's some takeaways
from the voting section. Now let's look at the
discussion. Really disappointing showing from
the votes. We could live with the sandbox voting
with its 27 million. At least we'd have a fighting
chance. But taking away the 24 million official
delegates, that was just a bad, bad look. It's
against Web3 values, and I was not happy to see
that, as most of the community was very unhappy
to see that happen. And here we are. Okay. So
let's now go into the latter portion, which is
the discussion. If you go to the discussion,
you go to... It'll take you to the forums. And
here in the forums, you can kind of see how the
discussion went. All right, so it was posted
January 28th, and we did this read -through.
The only addition here in the forums that wasn't
on the snapshot was the picture at the very bottom,
which was status on the current SIP. It showed
all the SIPs and the payment statuses of all
of them. I'm going to... and incorporate this
into the next Sandow podcast where we review
the Sandbox DAO itself from beginning to end.
But you'll see here all of the, you know, Chrysalis
Quest, NFT Collection, Metaverse City, Campus,
Magic Realms, Land Estate Sales, Metaverse Odyssey.
All right, I immediately, on the same day, posted
a response saying that I believe if we continue
with special council elections, which special
counsel term expired 31 December and the elections
were not held. So we knew something was wrong
at that point. And I kept advocating as the rest
of the community kept advocating for the continuance
of the special counsel. We need community elected
leadership so that we can continue the Dow and
render good governance. But that didn't happen.
So I said, I believe if we continue with special
counsel elections, we can have a community involved
reassessment that aligns with the new direction
the sandbox is going. My vote is to continue
the DAO. All right, so that received a number
of upvotes here. Kami came in after that and
said, I have mixed feelings with very little
info on the Sandbox 3 .0. It's hard to see what's
in store for the Sandbox. The game maker is the
best it's ever been. There are awesome new features
that builders are just now figuring out how to
use and realize the creative visions they've
had for years. 3 .0 is an unknown, at least to
Kami. It is a new engine maker. Is it a new engine
maker? Will anything we've built in VoxEdit and
GameMaker work in 3 .0? Should creators keep
on working in the existing tools, or is this
a waste of time that will shut down in the coming
months? This is Kami speaking. So he believed
that pausing the DAO will be a major shift that
will render old projects useless. These are his
words. And it goes on to talk about... game maker,
metaverse chat and game client, how there were
only four players online, and made his self -disclosures
about his involvement and looking forward to
running for special counsel. I was going to run
for special counsel as well. And his vote was
on the fence. He wanted to know more about 3
.0 and if it was worth waiting for, or if there
is still work to be done here and now. He didn't
want to see the dial paused. training further
momentum from the sandbox and i totally agree
with that yeah so that received a lot of upvotes
as well 12 even more than my eight yule uh another
prominent voice in the community said without
a doubt it's a very difficult decision and i
strongly share kami saw z's sentiment in our
case we are already preparing the final deliveries
for chrysalis quest it's no secret that sandbox
is implementing rapid changes across the board
forcing projects to constantly reevaluate how
to function best within the ecosystem without
compromising their initial planning. And he talks
about how, as a studio, he had decided to stop
developing games, given the lack of clarity.
He agreed that the DAO should currently serve
as a funding tool for high -quality users acquisition
and the creation of games, tools, experiences
that maximize brand recognition in the game market.
Also talked about how, with the recent launches
of Sandchain, Corners, and upcoming products
that don't seem actively linked to the game ecosystem.
We see with deep concern what appears to be a
deliberate strategy to gradually move away from
the creator ecosystem in search of new markets.
And then his very last comment was, with that
said, I believe it is fundamental to bring more
information regarding future of the sandbox to
the table to make an informed decision. Relying
on launch speculations and tweets is not enough
for such a critical move. I agree with that as
well. But yeah, there was no... Robbie Young,
when he did the AMAs, talked very openly about
moving away from user -generated content in the
metaverse, wanted to explore corners, sand chain,
and broaden the whole thing. I responded back
to Kami saying I agree wholeheartedly, and as
a bonus, I think a community elected special
counsel would facilitate the needed insight into
Sandbox 3 .0, and the community would feel like
it's following along and be more supportive.
That received a lot of upvotes, as did Ewell's
response. So far, a lot of upvotes for a lot
of the folks saying to continue the DAO. Victorin,
a well -known voice in the community from Sandbox
Africa, said, we've come too far to call this
a pause or anything close to it. The Sandbox
has delivered tangible outcomes. And Victorin
came in through the Sandbox DAO grant proposal.
He was in my domain when... And I loved Victor.
He did a great job. So he said communication,
putting the sandbox in the community has been
weak. Talked about how the DAO changed the narrative.
It brought structure, accountability, and hope.
Also went on to say the pausing the DAO risks,
pausing the DAO risks undoing that progress.
And for that reason, he's voting no. The sandbox
should remain active and be iterated on, not
paused. Another high amount of upvotes. I completely
agree with him. Shant said that I voted yes.
We cannot afford to wait until the end of the
quarter. We must stop immediately upon the vote.
The DAO has no meaning when the sandbox platform
itself is not functioning properly. It makes
no sense to play government without any citizens.
Whitney's referring to users, he said. We must
immediately halt all inefficiencies and prioritize
reviving the sandbox first. Let's normalize the
platform and win the survival battle. Only then
can we rebuild a truly meaningful DAO that fits
the sandbox. Now is the time to go all in and
turn around for survival. He had two upvotes
on that one. And it's very clear that it's heavily
weighted by the community to continue the DAO.
But Sean has been a well -known voice. I highly
respect Sean T in this. And he and I don't see
eye to eye, don't fully agree on our vote. I
respect his position. I understand where he's
come from. Sebga, another well -known voice and
is a delegate, just like Shanti was, said that
at first I was leaning toward voting yes in favor
of the pause. However, now that I see the pause
would last one full year, it feels excessive.
To me, that only suggests one thing, the end
of the DAO. I may be wrong, but I'm concerned
this could simply be a way to quietly make the
DAO fade away and Amoka might be uncomfortable
dealing with it. I agree with what he's saying.
And then he went on to say, have you ever seen
a DAO truly function with an end? an Animoca
project. I'm far from knowing everything. Animoca
brands is huge, but among the projects I follow,
none really have an active DAO or if they do,
never actually been used. I'm involved in, this
is not his words, it's me. I'm involved with
the Sandbox DAO, Star Atlas DAO. I was involved
with 8 .DAO and a number of other DAOs. A lot
of them are struggling with participation. But
the Star Atlas DAO has an active council. We
do open public meetings every week that we broadcast
and livestream. And it's going really well. The
community loves it. And it holds us accountable.
And also the momentum we build is phenomenal.
It's keeping the DAO going. And I think the same
thing should have been done here with Sandbox.
Having a well -known brand like the Sandbox have...
an open, transparent special counsel that build
in public, that would have been a recipe for
success. It was working in the Star Atlas DAO,
and that's much smaller by comparison. Okay,
Sebgo went on to say the idea of forcing a shutdown
raises many unanswered questions. He also talked
about agreeing with Victor and his point about
how difficult it is to build a strong relationship
of trust with users. He also said, honestly,
I'm not sure what the right move is. I understand
Shanti's point. and it does make sense. There's
little value in forcing things if the product
isn't ready. Then talked about in that context,
and given that Animoca Brands has no obligation
other than a moral one to maintain the Dow, we
don't really have much choice but to follow the
direction being taken. That said, regardless
of the outcome of the vote, there is one thing
I believe should absolutely be put on the table.
A clear, simple, and detailed report of the funds
distributed and the return on investment. Straight
forward comparison, promises versus reality.
And that was from Subga. received a number of
upvotes. Daddy Mufasa said my vote is continued
to Dow, received a lot of upvotes. And Dow, who
also is known as the intern, a delegate, said
it's been a minute since I posted anything. Quite
frankly, the last major retrenchment of staff
was the final nail in the coffin for me, and
I suspect many others. I've lost the community
that we have over here in Singapore, as well
as many globally that I met over the course of
three years. I've stopped building on GameMaker
ever since, and have only ever peeked into the
sandbox's main page once in a while to see if
life still exists there. I'm still in the metaverse
though, mainly playing user -generated games
on Roblox. And to be honest, I feel both pity
and sadness that the sandbox could have been
the Roblox in the crypto space. The expectation
was never for sandbox to overtake Roblox, but
be a force to be reckoned with. I believe many
of us hoped for this. We sure did. End turn.
He said, he then went on to say, my suspicion
is that once the DAO closes, it'll likely never
reopen. Talked about how much it breaks his heart
to say, I think it's a good idea to return the
DAO to TSB. Also talked about how allowing new
management to decide on the direction of the
organization, and then we decide if we want to
stay. And ended with, I do hope that they say
the course of the sandbox, the metaverse, but
it's anyone's guess at this point. Season seven
is coming, but what happens after, I doubt we'll
have clarity in time soon. Sanctum then said
that I'm interested in knowing what the sandbox
is deciding for 2026. A clear roadmap will help
creators. I responded with the sandbox roadmap
went offline. And I showed a picture of that
when I tried to go back to the public roadmap
that it had, the board turned private. So we're
no longer able to see the sandbox roadmap. That
was a surprise. I hadn't seen it. I hadn't looked
at it in a month or two, but yeah. A lot of people
expressed their surprise at that as a die. I
responded back to the intern about having the
same suspicions that it'll likely never reopen
if it closes. And I also commented on how ApeCoinDAO
did something similar. Yugo Labs did something
similar with ApeCoinDAO where they closed it
down and they forced the vote. And I think that
was a bad misstep on Yugo Labs' part. by pausing
the ApeCoin DAO. And they have been struggling,
they, Yuga Labs, has been struggling with participation
in their ecosystem ever since. And I used Grok,
I used ChatGBT to kind of run some numbers to
see how their participation went. And it's been
down, I think, something close to 30%. The likes,
reposts, the comments, all of the discussions
in ApeCoin community. And it traces back to the
loss of attention and ownership of a community
who no longer has a reason to engage in the Yuga
system every day. It's more of just like a check
-in. Whereas when you owned part of the 8 .0,
you had a reason to get a stake in it. Your vote,
your delegation, your alliances, your proposals,
you had a lot of reasons to be involved every
day. A lot of X -spaces happened because of it.
A lot of attention. But ever since that, now
it's just been kind of like other side and some
other fan -made projects. But there's a lot of
momentum that's been lost because of it. And
I think that's about to happen to the Sandbox.
I wish we would have continued it. And then talk
about how I hope Robbie is being advised by people
who understand the DAO's ability to produce results,
like the Sandbox DAO grants program, the NFT
collection, curation. of DAO Education Hub and
Magic Palette, there have been some big hits,
some big successful hits. But it gets to the
feeling that Robbie isn't being advised by Robbie,
the new CEO, isn't being advised through people
who understand DAO's ability to produce results.
It's not clear to me that many people within
the Sandbox company do understand the DAO and
the power that can be wielded by people in the
community to augment almost... free of cost,
the Sandbox Game Company. So that was a bummer.
And then I talked about how the Star Atlas DAO,
which I'm special counsel for the Star Atlas
DAO. I was elected now into second term. We've
hosted, in nine months, we hosted 37 public meetings
over in the Star Atlas DAO. We get about an average
of 11 attendees and 15 stream viewers each time
we live stream it. And that's a game only with
a thousand monthly active users. Whereas the
sandbox had, you know, at one point had over
a million. So right now it looks like 20 to 60
,000 per chat GPT that the sandbox has. So we
could have three, four times the amount of meeting
participants. and viewers and that's just more
content more attention economy that would benefit
the sandbox itself and so i i have a little dashboard
that we are tracking over in star atlas style
all the accomplishments we made 149 of them 149
accomplishments that that impacted the star atlas
ecosystem in a positive way and overseeing payments
and increasing the Sorry, let's dial voting participation
as one of our goals. We wanted something close
to 50 million, 80 million participation every
proposal. And we reached that almost every single
time. So yeah, it's definitely doable. And it
is being done in other DAOs. And it's something
that could happen here with the elections that
were supposed to happen on. by January 1st. Hishmad
then responded and said, I'm invested in the
sandbox and we believe in decentralized governance
done right. He would be voting in favor of the
proposal because he believed that we reached
a point where a pause is essential and as an
entrepreneur, Hishmad believes that the most
strategic move is to safeguard the remaining
resources by suspending activity as proposed.
Byverson, and Hishmad's a verified delegate,
Byverson then responded, he's also a verified
delegate. That TSP is undergoing some serious
downsizing. It's felt in every field, staff reductions,
closure of country representative offices, and
even reducing the number of honorable mentions
in game jams. So, Biverson is not surprised to
see the DAO being discontinued. Talks about TSP
numbers and not making a profit. Talks about
development tools are better than ever, but they
are worse compared to their competitors. Talked
about an outlook of the last five years with
GameMaker. And the Dallas Community Interaction
talks about the new management wants to solve
many problems. And TSB is more than a sick man,
as it seems from the outside. And unless TSB
is operated on, it's unlikely to survive. So
one asked if there would be a roadmap, would
there be programs and change? And in short, even
though biversing is undecided, the yes side outweighs
the current situation. I responded back, did
a little calculation, and thought that we had
received about $6 .8 million in USDC from the
Sandbox Game Company as an endowment. We spent
$2 .3 million across 38 SIPs, and we had $4 .4
million left. So I thought that we could safely
involve the Dow and keep the Dow going for less
than $200 ,000 USDC a year. And this is nothing
to our remaining $4 .4 million budget. So I wanted
to continue the Dow because of that. Ishmad responded
back to me and said he agrees with the perspective,
but to clarify his understanding, wanted to know
if the $6 .8 million from the sandbox is structured
as a grant or accountable debt. Spoiler alert,
it was a grant, not accountable debt. And Spann
also said, furthermore, I'm a bit advocate for
voluntary governance. If there's an appetite
for it, and I'd like to volunteer his time, I'm
sure there are others in the community who'd
be willing to join me in pro bono capacity. Myself
included. Xero said, I think we need more information
before deciding which route we're going to take.
And then posted the AMA that at the time was
about to happen in February with... Sebastian
Bourget, Cyril, Robbie Young, also Panda Pops
was there. And I responded back to Hishmad. I
wasn't sure at the time if it was grant or accountable
debt. The 15 .5 million sand that was given,
that was about the 6 .8 million USDC at the time,
converted to 6 .8 million. Back then, the exchange
rate was 44 cents per sand. So that amounts to
$6 .8 million when granted $15 .5 million. Hishman
said it'd be helpful to revisit the documentation,
which I did that, and that's when we discovered
it was a grant, not a countable debt. And said
while an unconditional grant allows for total
independence, a conditional agreement means we
must be diligent in respecting the sandbox's
intended direction. So even though it was a grant,
there still was some, you know, sandbox. wallet
put their thumb on the scale to make sure that
the yes foot would be obtained i responded back
and said i didn't see any indication this was
a loan and as i have learned from eight coin
dow and star alistow who are both foundation
companies in the grand cayman islands the originating
company could impose their own restrictions simply
by controlling the wallet or having a separate
service agreement so that's just my my reading
of their documents that are public and discovered
that there was still a measure of control that
both companies could exert on the foundation
companies. Just because they're separate companies
in separate countries doesn't mean that there
isn't a degree of control there. Hishmat said,
thanks for the clarification. Serial's proposal
is transparent, and it's clear that the TSP management
team has thoroughly vetted the potential impacts.
If we are to maintain the DAO, we must have a
compelling justification that aligns with the
TSB's strategic goals. I asked, what further
reasons can we provide to bolster our position
before the discussion? And suspected that TSB's
3 .0 strategy might be headed in a different
direction than what I was suggesting. I mean,
Lancer. To make this more persuasive, do you
have a more robust or compelling reason we should
present? That bridges the gap. And I said, there
are three reasons. Reason one, or reason A, was
that... No new SIPs and governing bodies were
not codependent on each other. We could have
a governing body without stopping the no new
funding SIPs. As in, we could stop funding new
SIPs and still have governance bodies. We didn't
need to halt both at the same time. And reason
B was the continued exclusion of community -nominated
bodies will increase community frustrations and
repeat missing the mark with the community. So,
for example, the first special counsel and advisory
board, they were all nominated by the internal
corporate deliberations and proposed to the community
in SIPs 1, 2, and 3. They were nominated by the
Samox Game Company and resulted in intense outrage
in the beginning. And ever since then, the special
counsel and advisory board were largely silent
throughout. They didn't do any billing in public.
have any public meetings. And so we had, the
DAO was absent, their leadership. And if they
had been more present, I think that that would
not have been quite so hard on the community.
Reason C, the third reason was the continued
over -reliance on internal corporate deliberations
will repeat the cycle of misapplied solutions.
Longstanding community sentiment. is that the
decisions are handed down from on high from a
closed system and the sandboxing company, which
consistently sidesteps the necessary process
required for precise fulfillment of community
needs. The example is conducting multiple restricted
X -Bases where only corporate individuals and
unfamiliar key opinion leaders are invited on
stage. So some of the AMAs that were held, the
ones I'm thinking right now, is when they did
the sip on funding. Funding the Sandbox Ambassadors.
It was a closed X -Space. There was not much
community involvement. It was just a one -way
PR meeting where they said some things, they
talked about some things. I covered that in a
Sandbox Tao episode. And my disappointment that
it was a closed meeting. They handed it down,
what they want us to know. And there was no real
discussion about it. It was really disappointing.
And the AMAs for this SIP were the same. No one
from the community was really invited on stage
to talk or ask questions. And the discussion
here in this thread, as you can see, the Sandbox
account is silent. You're about to hear from
Cyril and the Sandbox account after the AMA,
but they make a few posts and they don't respond
back. So this is a community responding to itself,
having to figure itself out and deal with not
having any leadership really present. So those
are my three reasons. Hishmad responded back
to me and said, seeking more clarity on reason
A, but he does find B and C to be very straightforward
and he's fully aligned with them. Thank you,
Hishmad. Cyril responded back and said, just
to correct some data. The $15 .5 million in sand
was a donation with no strings attached, not
a loan. It was never swapped to USDC from the
get -go, so you remember that the first SIP was
only payable in sand, and most of our treasury
remained in sand. It was swapped tactically when
the exchange rate was favorable and to pay for
certain bills or SIP that were billed in fiat,
ETH, or USDC. With sand being at $0 .10, what
is effectively left in the vault today is $891
,000 USDC, not $4 million. And this is not taking
into account the bills they're left to pay for
this year to maintain the system. So I guess
if everything is still in sand, I get the protective
stance by the Sandbox company and the admin team
if they didn't swap it to USDC back when the
exchange rate was better. So that's a bummer.
It's a big bummer. Instead of the $4 million
that I calculated, and I calculated it at the
time it was given as an endowment, back when
that $0 .44 exchange rate. So $4 million then.
But if you take into account what's left, and
at an exchange rate of $0 .10, Cyril is saying
that what's left is $891 ,000, not the $4 .4
million that I calculated. So that was a good
discussion point. Shanti then posted a summary
of the AMA. on SIP39 with the CEO, and that was
one of the only summaries that we got. I didn't
think to record it, and the recording bug hit,
so we didn't have a recording of it, but I did
cover that back in, as I mentioned earlier, I
did cover those AMAs in SIP number, or not SIP,
in Sandow 67, a reaction to the Dow pause. Okay.
So, Shanti talked about how the AMA summary was,
the core objective was to pause DAO operations
to reallocate resources toward a core product
development and AI -driven innovation, and cited
resource optimization, operational shift, AI
creator tools. Existing SIPs will be paused.
Excuse me, existing SIPs, most would be approved.
Most approved SIPs would be honored, although
three of them would be discontinued. My biggest
disappointment was the NFT curation one by Arth
Morton and his team, which is making the DAO
money, was paused. Also, the land sales, which
would have made it possible to trade estates
in a secure and safe manner using the already
integrated GBM system, that was paused, which
is a big bummer. Those who have estates know
how hard it is to trade and sell them. We have
to do it through pretty unsafe methods. But having
an in -house sandbox exchange trade or buy -sell
for estates would have been really helpful. The
sandbox account did respond after that and said,
Thank you for your comment, Hishmad. We hope
today's AMA helps shed some more light on the
road ahead for the sandbox. Which it did. SIP
39 is intended to be both operational and strategic.
It pauses SIP intake, programs, and operations
to preserve the DAO's asset and ensure it is
best positioned once it's determined how the
DAO should contribute in the context of the sandbox's
evolving ecosystem and what the best future model
should be. That was a very PR answer. Yeah, we
need more from the sandbox. We need them to engage
more with the community. Yes, the community is
angry. You need to internalize that and persist
through that tension. Most of the anger comes
from the lack of transparency, and messages like
these are very corporate -heavy, very one -way
that I was talking about earlier and my three
reasons when I was talking with Hishmad, and
it's not helping. It's not helping. I really
wish they had... been a bit more involved cyril
was hunted back and said just confirming this
is a legit sandbox account be careful about the
impersonator um he's referring to sandbox account
that won one message prior so can zero confirm
that this is a legit account and then i talk
about um the x space playback bug for the ama
that happened in february and my quick My quick
outline that it lasted 30 minutes. Panda Pops
was the host with Seb, Robbie, and Cyril as speakers.
Robbie said that the point of the pause is to
conserve resources while we focus our efforts
on Sandbox 3 .0, mainly Sandchain and Corners.
Robbie also said the Sandbox wallet will be voting
with its voting power. So he told us at that
time it wouldn't be happening. Didn't tell us
that the 24 million delegate power would be...
were ascended, taken away, and added to its wallet
to heavily weight it toward yes. Cyril presented,
or wanted to present, oh, Cyril mentioned that
he presented a rewritten constitution of the
bylaws to the Sandbox company, but the Sandbox
chose not to pursue that path, which is interesting,
and I really feel for Cyril. It's clear that
he is really advocating for the community here
and tried to save it, but the Sandbox... Game
company or someone in a position of power, most
likely Robbie, we don't know, said no. Didn't
want to go that route at this time. And the special
counsel and advisory board elections will not
be held. So those were my notes that I recorded
after realizing that the playback bug hit that
X space. Then I talked about going live on Sandow
podcast. So there it is. Okay, then I responded
back to Cyril, who talked about SEM being at
$0 .10 and the value being $891 ,000, USDC not
$4 million. And I said, yes, I did forget to
account for the remaining value in today's value
exchange rate. But it was really difficult to
calculate that value because not all SIPs were
cited in SEM. Some were cited in USDC and some
were in euros. So it was difficult for me. I
had to pull the exchange rates for each SIP when
they closed and convert that day's exchange rate
as the official USDC account. And yeah, so I
converted all of them into USDC the day the vote
ended to come up with a number that I could back.
And that was rational to me. So that number I
came up with was $460 ,000, which is $4 .1 million.
4 .6 million times 10 cents. And I asked him
if he could share his formula. And I shared mine
here. This. Which I'll cover in the next send
out episode. Where we go through the sandbox
now. And then I shared my calculation sheet.
Which had a lot of formulas. A lot of formulas.
I went through every sip. Recorded the details.
And then on the far right -hand side is a big
table of the exchange rates for that particular
day. And you can see how in SIP 1, it was $0
.44. And here in SIP, the latest SIP, $0 .38,
was $0 .11. So quite a reduction since SIP 1.
This inbox account. Responded back to me and
said, hello, Lancer, we would like to share some
clarification on reason A that I cited. So reason
A, if you all remember, was when I said no new
funding SIPs and governance bodies were not COVID
dependent. You could do one without the other,
meaning you could continue governing without.
I'm sorry, you could continue governing and pause
SIPs. You didn't have to stop both. The Sandbox
responded back to that and said, Hello, Lenzer.
We'd like to share some clarification on reason
A. SIP 39 is not only a pause on new funding
SIPs, it also pauses DAO operations and governance
activity as a whole. Under SIP 39, the Special
Counsel and Advisory Board will be discontinued
along with SIPs. This also means that related
activity and remuneration, remuneration means
payment or compensation, will stop. The Constitution
remains as a reference framework, but revised
to remove certain governance functions as defined
in SIP 39. This was a very confusing response
because my post was saying that they didn't have
to be all in SIP 39. You could continue governing
bodies while stopping new SIPs. And the sandbox's
official account said they just reiterated what
SIP 39 was. They didn't really address what I
was saying. They just kind of went right past
that. I'm not really sure. I guess they didn't
really read my response. I'm not quite sure why
they chose to respond like that. So the Sandbox
official account then made another post and said,
at this stage, the DAO pause timeline is indefinite.
The Sandbox and the Sandbox Foundation will review
options that present the best future for the
DAO if and when there is a concrete proposal,
which could mean reactivation or a new model.
It would be shared as an update in the SIP form
thread. Until then, the DAO remains in the maintenance
mode. Minimal activity as defined in SIP 39.
Reactivation would involve a new SIP that defines
scope, mandate, governance model, and budget.
So, clarification by the Sandbox account. Cyril
responded back to me. And... I responded back
with the clarification, if you could share his
formula. He said, I'm afraid the picture you're
presenting is overly simplified. I'll respond
briefly, but not to sidebar this thread. We've
done multiple swaps throughout the life of the
DAO using different rates, which makes sense
that they would do that. I just don't have that
data, so I don't know what those swaps were when
they were made. So I'm not able to follow that
logic. Did so when the market was in our favor.
Also did so to pay certain bills. Applied what
they call the 70 -110 rule on certain SIPs, meaning
we have protected the author from the sand going
too low, down to 70%. Oh, yeah, yeah. So I covered
that in an earlier Sandow episode when they came
up with the new rules. When they transitioned
in October 2024 to the new SIP process, they
also had that at 70. 110 rule in place. So meaning
for certain SIPs, we had to pay more sand than
was intended. The 110 % rule was the other way
around to protect the DAO from overpaying the
author. Later, we ditched that rule, deemed too
complex, and favored what we called a grant lock.
We fixed the exchange rate at the time the SIP
was approved and swapped to USDC directly, saved
it until it was time to pay. It was mainly used
for later SIPs labeled USDC, which makes sense.
That is a pretty easy... more simpler method.
And then we also, he also said, Cyril did, we
also had some income using various DeFi protocol.
And for example, the work of the, the art NFT
collect curation team, final number that he gave
191 ,000, 891 ,000 is automatically calculated
by ourselves, custodian software and accounting.
It's mainly made of sand, ETH and USDC. is the
golden source and cannot be approximated by a
formula. So in light of that, I still stand by
my numbers because that's the best I have to
make my own calculations. And I understand Ciro
had a profit and loss statement they calculated,
but it wasn't able to share that, so I couldn't
follow along. All right, then I responded back
to the Sandbox account, who, when they responded
back to me and reiterated SIP39, I said, I understand
my position that it's possible to go through
with not allowing any new funding SIPs and still
continue the governing bodies of special counsel
and advisory board. It doesn't have to be everything
paused all at once, and the sandbox loses very
little by continuing governance. I responded
back to Cyril and said, yep, makes sense that
when you dished a rule, the 70 -110 rule, in
favor of the grant lock rule. Yes, that makes
sense. Thank you for explaining, Cyril. My numbers
are based off of the method that I could use
by converting it the day it was, the day that
SIP was vote ended. I converted to USDC. So,
you know, converted USDC amount for every SIP
at the time it was approved. I understand that
this is an accurate method. And then Cyril responded
back to me, said, yeah, to be fair, he had a
more direct export from the DAOs. profit and
lost and balance sheet so yeah makes sense and
something i noticed while live streaming sandal
67 about a month ago that sip 36 land estate
cells is an extremely value -added tool to the
sandbox itself and what was discussed and what
was the discussion behind including it in the
cancelled sips i never really did get an answer
to that uh gbm's auction site is on the sandbox
.games website and it's useful to everyone within
the state so as a bummer i really i really like
that that tool uh for for those of you who are
wondering what it is i'm talking about it is
g sandbox .gbm .auction and here you can here
you can see sandbox or sand lands amongst lands
that are being auctioned right now. There are
quite a number of auctions that have already
completed. All right, so they would have allowed
estates to be securely and safely bought and
sold on this website, but looks like it wasn't
meant to be. All right, then I published Sandow67,
a reaction to the Dow Paws announcement about
28 days ago. Sebga then said, you know, after
all this discussion, it seems clear that going
against the SIP is not the best option. If the
DAO is the body of the sandbox, then the body
has to follow the head. They have no interest
in being a dead weight or a costly burden within
the system. I will therefore vote yes. But then
he edited his response to say, it seems that
it's over for an indefinite period. It has been
a very interesting experience, and I'm grateful
to have shared it with all of you. Periods of
calm and of tension are both part of the life
of any living system. Thank you all for these
moments of exchange, dreams, and sharing. I really
love the feeling of building something together
with everyone. Nothing is set in stone. We'll
see what tomorrow brings. In any case, a big
thank you to you all. Totally agree, Sebka. Except
the part about it seems clear that going against
the SIP is not the best option. I do think it
was the best option to go against the SIP and
vote to continue the down. And then I posted
Sandow68 after interviewing Seb Bourget, the
co -founder and global brand ambassador of the
Sandbox. He used to be the special counsel. So
my opinion was I still think it was clear to
continue the DAO with governance bodies while
being budget conscious. And there it was. Lily
Rose then talked about how the tail, which she
referred to as the DAO, should have moved quicker
to swallow the head, which was TSB. and went
into her opinion about mismanagement and how
the skills were about more of PR than it was
for managing the company and stuff like that,
which is an honest take from Lily. And she's
a well -known community member, so I respect
her position. Talked about how Roblox and Fortnite
are multi -billion dollar companies making millions
for their creators and there was no reason the
sandbox couldn't have slid into that space. Believed
that if the DAO was paused that it wouldn't come
back and voted to not pause the DAO. Wanted to
at least run it on fumes and advocated for selling
some of the NFTs. from the collection, which
Arth Morton and his team was doing successfully.
I covered that in previous episodes. All right,
so Sandbox employed a lot of talented creatives,
and I totally agree. Okay, then Cyril posted
that the SIP was open for voting. Hissmad said
he voted yes, approved SIP 39, and paused the
DAO. I then published Sandow 69, which was a
review of the DAO, a read -through of it. Lily
Rose thanked Lanzer and said voted no. Put it
in maintenance mode. Don't pause it. I then responded
about how I remember when the community felt
it didn't have much influence in how the sandbox
ecosystem developed. I didn't want to return
back to that. This was before the DAO came out
in May 2024. And the DAO to me was the single
biggest change that turned that around in the
community. Not feeling heard and not being able
to participate in the governance of the ecosystem.
And the DAO was a great thing. It still is a
great thing. I wish we'd continued it. Hishmat
said, good morning, Lanzer. I totally get where
you're coming from. The DAO was a huge step forward
in giving the community real influence. That
said, I voted yes on SIP 39 because it was proposed
by the Sandbox company who seeded the DAO initially
in SIPs 1 through 3 and feels like a deliberate
pause to conserve resources while they push Sandbox
3 .0 forward. Malameya said, good morning. Haven't
posted much. but I've been reading and supporting
different initiatives here in the Sandbox DAO
since it went live. Voted on all SIFs and through
the rollercoaster ride that befell the Sandbox
game in the past six years or so. I remember
being excited for the DAO as it gave the community,
SandFam, a much -needed sense of ownership to
Sway in terms of how the Sandbox is shaped. We've
all seen the rise and fall of Creative Studios.
I said hello and goodbye to many people in the
Sandbox team at every level. Malamayo is in agreement
with the folks here that some SIFs needed pausing,
but needs to be an overhaul on the management,
funds, council, and protocols. I'm voting, and
Malamayo is voting no for now with what little
voting power Malamayo had, hoping that some of
the terms could be changed in favor of continuing
with the skeletal ops and reform in conjunction
with the sandbox version 3 roadmap. But dropping
this thought here as an unsolicited comment and
warning that this could be, at worst, a death
sentence to the DAO, as it was for many other
DAOs in the past, or at the very least, a clear
exit sign for those who are still around believing
in the metaverse. Cheers. Cheers, Malamaya. Sebga
then said, No shutdown desired. I agree with
suspending new SIPs for a time needed to reorganize.
Shutting down the DAO would be a step backwards.
The real question is, what will come next? And
that's why SEPGA voted 60 % yes and 60, or excuse
me, 40 % yes to pause the DAO and 60 % no in
pausing the DAO. I then post that tweet from
Snapshot Labs that showcased the DAO's vote in
SEP39. I thought that was really, really cool.
I responded back to it on X, talking about how
it felt. You know, Yuga took this approach with
8 .DAO and it didn't. It didn't go well. It suffered
an attentioning economy deficit ever since, and
I pulled that research from AI. And the Sandbox
.community, which is the SanFam, can proactively
evolve with Sandbox 3 .0. Couldn't find the logic
in stopping the governance bodies. Also, that
was about time we realized, I realized that the
12 approved delegates with their 2 million voting
power each, 24 million voting power total, was
rescinded and added to the sandbox's 53 million
voting power. Which is a huge bummer to see.
I really wish that they hadn't done that. That
just kind of made it all worse. Xura said, my
vote is a clear no. It's disheartening to see
this sip handled in a way that clearly indicates
the outcome had already been determined. And
that's exactly how it seemed. Lily Rose says
that, well, this sucks because the Sandbox voted
yes with their massive $8 million wallet, which
they have, as I showed y 'all earlier, was $27
million. And the Dow didn't act quickly enough
to cut its umbilical cord from the Sandbox game
company. I agree. The progressive decentralization
that Seb and Cyril briefed and talked about at
NFT Paris back in May of 2024 wasn't progressively
decentralized fast enough. And I responded back
to Lily saying, agreed. I thought we had more
runway than this. It's difficult to keep the
faith in a situation like this. Limited communication.
Feelings that the controlling party is acting
disingenuously. Seeing a retracement back to
legacy patterns of one -way street behavior.
And I'm sad to see it go this way. That thing
that hurts the most is knowing it didn't have
to go this way. It's a real bummer. Victorin
said, hello, admin team. Victorin requested clarity
on the current standing of Sandbox Nigeria, which
is still under admin review. Wanted some more
clarity. And we've done so much work to be abandoned
on that SIP. Our proof of work is massive and
needs to be compensated or put into consideration.
Yeah, Sam, they did a lot of good work for the
sandbox over in Africa. Victor and the folks.
All right, then Dancing Sweater is, I don't agree
with the pause. Cyril, they responded back to
Victor and said, as per the framework requested
via SIP 39, all new submissions are paused. Your
initiative has not reached the SIP status as
yet. Curation was still ongoing. Therefore, if
SIP 39 comes to pass, your idea and its curation
will be paused. No compensation. In the meantime,
we pause our curation pending the outcome of
this SIP. As a gentle reminder, the admin team
is not the author for SIP 39. We are only responsible
for its execution if one SIP passes. So that
was a reminder of how when they went to the...
the closed invite system back in October 2024,
back here in step number two, after you've submitted
to the SIP idea, you submit your SIP to the Typeform
link after you've been invited by the DAO admin
team. Otherwise, you have to wait here in step
one. You can't proceed to step two unless you've
been invited. That's what they mean by SIP curation.
Also could mean step three, where you receive
DAO admin team review after you've submitted
your SIP in the Typeform link. So curation could
be one or the other. All right, so back to it.
I responded back. Just Cyril saying thanks for
the reminder. And Cyril, thank you very much
for everything you've done. I know I've expressed
my skepticism in the past. I've been sometimes
the harshest critic of the lack of transparency
early. And then when Digging the Sand podcast
came on and Cyril came on with Kunta and explained
his rationale for the release, thinking that
it was going to be a powerful momentum. to launch
everything at once, it made sense. And I think
what really, really did it for me was when Cyril
said that he's not a trained PR person. He's
not, he's a builder and he's, so didn't really
know how to deal with comments like mine, demanding
transparency and kind of noting a lot of inconsistencies.
That makes perfect sense. And I really appreciated
Cyril being vulnerable like that and just coming
out with the truth. It was really, really cool
to see. Thank you, Cyril, for that. That really
changed my opinion about a lot of stuff. Money,
who was a domain allocator and also an unknown
voice in the community, said, sad to see this
direction. I vote against. Once paused, I do
not foresee a restart. Hoping for the best, though.
I then said the conversation we had all about
the community council seems prophetic now. The
community council was a sip back in December
2024 and all the way to February 2025 about an
elected community council because the special
council and advisory board were maintaining a
low profile and didn't really participate in
governance. So there was a a SIP idea to create
a community elected council to do working groups
and stuff like that. And it went through a lot
of discussion, 261 responses and posts back and
forth. But ultimately it was not, it was not
proceeded forward with. And yeah. Yeah, so this
was the post by CUNTA. Having been reverted,
remained for 15 months, it did not progress past
that point. But it was a great discussion, and
we almost had a community -elected council that
could build momentum. So we tried very hard there.
I thought the CC was a step in the right direction,
and that if we don't do the community council,
House of Sand was the next best option, which
is kind of like a community, almost like a congress.
a parliament. Um, but I said doing nothing until
special council, all the reelections was the
worst way to go in my view, which is what ended
up happening. And that was the way that that
was taken there. House of San didn't proceed
for neither did community council. And, um, because
of that, you know, now we were faced with the
pausing of the Dow and no elections for the special
council or advisory board. So that was prophetic.
Which was a bummer. Cyril said in response to
my post about thanking him for everything that
he's done. Cyril expressed his gratitude for
that. If this passes, which seems likely now,
I'll be gone by the end of March. And I'll make
sure to say goodbye. Please do, Cyril. Please
do. I'll be the first one to shake your hand
and thank you. Congratulate you for a successful
DAO. I still think it is successful. Cyril said
nine days ago the voting period for SIP 39 ended,
counted the statistics that we went over earlier,
and the DAO will officially be paused by the
end of March as per the terms of this SIP. The
Vision X, Joseph, very well -known community
member, was in Sandow 1. No, Sandow 2 or 3 with
Crafter. It was a three -way panel. that I held,
or very early in the Sandow podcast, said, oh,
hey, a vote by one dude, decentralized. Yeah,
agreed. And I responded back to Cyril, that was
a bummer to see. The Dow will be officially paused.
And, yep, Cyril did say, reminded me that the
sandbox did confirm in the latest X space that
they will vote. However, what they did not confirm
was that they would be taking the 24 million
voting power away from the delegates and adding
it to their own wallet. So that was a bummer.
And the Vision X, Joseph reminded us, and I'm
really glad he did this, that Sebastian said
in the past that it was up to the community to
decide which external initiatives should or should
not get funded and recounted some of these ex
-posts where Sebastian would say that as we decentralize.
it's up to the community to decide and how they
would impact life of creators and players it
will happen here let's go to the next post all
right so this was in response at the time um
and voting yes or no to to sips back in june
of 2024 uh this is not the one i wanted to The
main thing here was that it's up to the community
to decide which external initiatives should or
should not get funded and how these would impact
the life of creators and players. So really emphasizing
that it's up to the community, right? And then
VisionX said, and add to that here, where he
said that no votes may result in an action in
this DAO back when it was proposed initially.
And so here's the X post from Sebastian saying
that... Yes, needs to win for the first phase
of the DAO to operate and be able to amend the
first constitution via SIPS and involve public
participation. And then VisionX said, and still
here, where he specifically replied to a complaint
by a now formal developer in the ecosystem, where
he said that he would only vote to create a quorum
once the community has shown its decision. He
voted against the community explicitly in this
case, and it's a shame to see you lose your job
because of it. Yeah. I was really bummed to see
the realignment as well, but I understand there
was an explanation by both Yatsu, CEO of Animoca
Brands, and Robbie Young later on. But Sebastian
was saying here that the sandbox would not vote.
And if it did, only to establish quorum. But
in SIP39, it did vote, and it did so with a huge
amount of voting power. Oh, he said click through
the last sentence where he said what happens.
Let's go to that. Take a look here. So... So
vote. Vote abstain would be is a quick solution
and that we could use optionally and only at
the end once the community has shown its decision.
One and two will need once in length. All sips
are bound to fail unless then regardless of their
quality. Okay. So thank you for that reminder.
basically explaining that Sebastian had said
Simox, while it would not vote unless it really
had to and mostly to abstain to get quorum. And
that was it. That was the end of the discussion.
65 responses to SIP39 in the discussion thread.
So let's go back to here. All right, so I just
kind of pulled the key points here. For everyone
who discussed, Cyril, Yul Wolf, myself, The Sandbox
Account, Kami, The Vision X, Xura, Lily Rose,
some well -known community members. Then some
of the delegates were Hishmad, Sebga, Byverson,
Shanti, and Dao, otherwise known as The Intern.
And then some other well -known community voices
like Daddy Mufasa, Victorin, Money, Malamaya,
Dancing Sweater, and Sanctum. So thank you all
for discussing. And the... and SIP39 discussion
forums. And I wanted to pull out also this tweet
from Arthmore, who was the DAO NFT curator and
said it was an intense journey and stewarding
the NFT portfolio and also showed a reminder
of what success they had in the NFT collection.
I went over that in Sandell, I think 67. went
through um just how many how much they had earned
for the dow let's actually take a look and see
if we can see that real fast okay so their their
revenue was 400 000 that they had made for the
dow by managing the portfolio so quite successful
in my opinion So that was one of the casualties
is SIP26, NFT collection management for the Sandbox
DAO. Another casualty was SIP36. I talked about
that earlier, which was the Sandbox estate selling
tool, also known as the land estate sales, which
was for the GBM plugin on the Sandbox game website.
And then also with SIP33, which is a sandbox
metaversity campus creating your learning playground.
So some takeaways in the discussion. Most community
responses on the DAO forums were against pausing
the DAO. Some felt that SanFam community did
not move quickly enough to progressively decentralize.
And reaction to the sandbox taking delegate voting
power away was a disappointment. And most agree
was bad optics for the ecosystem. But in the
end, the voting period ended, and SIP 39 passed
with 80 % yes, 11 % no, and 9 %... I'm sorry,
80 % yes, 11 % abstained, and 9 % no. The quorum
was met with 233%, and the Dow will officially
be paused by the end of March for SIP 39. I didn't
see any community questions in the chat. I don't
really have any other open topics because that
basically covers it right there. Zip39. So, episodes
1 through 70. 70 is now done. I have two more
episodes and then I think I will be able to pause
the Sandow podcast for as long as the Sandbox
DAO is paused. So episode 71, I'll do a review
of the Sandbox DAO. And then episode 72, I'll
do a review of the Sandow podcast. Then after
that, I will probably pause the Sandow podcast.
All right, I normally go over the Sandbox spaces,
but at this point, I'm just going to see past
that and go into rating. So here we are. We are
at the end. Sandow 70. An update of the DAO pause.
It was a disappointment. I'm really bummed to
see it happen. And I'm hoping that it does come
back. That it does unpause at some point in the
future. All right. Thank you all for your time
and appreciate. Appreciate it very much. Thank
you.