Proposal Name: Access to Analysis Reports for Voters
Proposal Type: Process
Overall Cost: $0 ongoing
Summary: This proposal suggests including Draft Analysis Reports (DAR) with every proposal during the voting phase. This will give voters complete information and help them make informed decisions.
Motivation: The main goal is to offer DAO token holders detailed reports on each proposal, which are already created during the AIP process. By sharing these documents, voters can make better choices.
Reasoning: As these drafts are already prepared and circulated among the Special Council and some Stewards, it’s logical to include them with each vote on snapshot.org.
Details:
The Ape Foundation will ensure DAR packages are included with each proposal’s vote.
Make the reports easy to access on Snapshot.
Plan the release of past DAR packages, excluding private author information.
Share DARs from the last year in a downloadable format.
Automate the ongoing release of reports and avoid community member involvement.
Focus on providing thorough and unbiased risk analysis.
Implementation Steps:
Ape Foundation sets a date for releasing past documents.
Ape Foundation starts including DAR packages with each live snapshot vote.
Follow AIP-1 for legal reviews.
Protect private information about proposal authors.
Ape Foundation is responsible for document content.
Provide a new download link for the reports during snapshot voting.
Make the links easily accessible.
Cost: No extra costs are expected. The Ape Foundation already creates these documents. Sharing them with token holders will enhance communication.
Hello. This is a simple proposal that will give the community access to reports on each proposal for the last year and ongoing. During the stages of AIP process, documents are produced on each proposal. The internal preparation templates were shared widely. DAR packages can be shared on Snapshot.
I am confident these documents will be adequate for voters to make more informed decision. It is important that private information gathered about each proposer is not exposed to the public. Quick redactions or changes to what information is gathered can make this request easy to fulfill.
Directing these to be added to snapshot will be greatly beneficial. It is imperative that we see why certain AIPS are flagged for initial legal reviews. This will greatly speed up the process.
Yes thank you. These documents are already available. This proposal will put them on snapshot. If we know what is causing legal red flags, itll be easy to make proposals go through the process much faster.
Hey @br00no. Last winter, a leak exposed many internal documents, including templates for onboarding special counsel and proposal risk reports. Stewards and facilitators are now writing risk reports for each proposal.
These reports involve background checks on individuals, including their education, career, expertise, and reputation. Company details like size, revenue, funding, and market cap are also examined. Analysts look into the author’s blockchain history and location too.
Legal flags, project outcomes, competitors, and user/community size are considered. For platforms, active users and potential risks are assessed. These reports are currently done by stewards/discourse facilitators. By making these available with each vote, as well as making past risk reports available, we can ensure quality control and accuracy of information.
What qualifications, ethical or legal authority do Stewards or self-appointed Discourse facilitators have to write risk reports, much less conduct background checks, etc.?!
Is that “check” the comical question we know is asked of AIP authors if they foresee any legal risk, as if they’re unbiased or are legal experts, or could be held accountable?
Leaks!?
Again, zero oversight or auditing.
Several proposals have passed with plenty of ethical and legal peril already - anyone with actual experience in securities law or finance can tell you that.
In any case, your description of DAR contents is largely private info and should absolutely NOT be shared publicly - cannot legally be shared publicly without permission of the people involved and even then it’s a slippery slope ethically and legally - with a largely uninformed and disinterested anonymous voting body that can’t be bothered to click relevant links in AIPs and who don’t care about the total lack of audit or oversight in the Foundation or the Working Group proposals.
@br00no listen. This thread will eventually go forward to voters. It is important that we keep conversations on point and present this as an immediate solution to many transparency problems. By getting access to these documents for all voters, we can ensure quality of reviews.
As the forum user with the highest stats, a key holder @ Apecomms, and long time contributor with great experiences across the community, I have made great efforts to express my concerns across mediums, sometimes with pushback. Putting forward this proposal is a step towards transparency.
Can I answer any questions about this proposal for you?
This proposal is simple and should go through process quick.
My comments were absolutely on point, and my comments and questions above stand.
I asked specific questions which you ignored in favor of snark, and there’s nothing simple about proposing very serious ethical and legal violations on top of very serious ethical and legal violations.
Multiple wrongs don’t make a right, and if what you stated above is true then we have too many serious wrongs to count at this point; all of them with zero oversight or audits in place or proposed.
@br00no I assure you I have no snarkiness. I am not here to discuss any documents released unofficially or spread amongst the community. By releasing these generated DAR packages on snapshot along with each vote, there will be complete information on each proposal provided to voters each time.
The above proposal accomplishes that.
The proposal above ensures private info is not shared.
I’m preparing for some FAQ posts too for this idea period.
I like the idea, but may I suggest that if a report is published about AIP author, the author should have the chance to add a response in their AIP to correct/explain any info in the report. Then both are available to voters.
I would not, however, allow changes to AIP main body itself after administrative review was finished (except to add the section with explanations for risk report).