Hey Halina! Thank you as always for the feedback, and for the general support of funding AIP-124.
Digging in a bit on your second question, yes, we can split the funds, but…
The way this is structured the Thank Ape Community board is already in control of how much funding to push to any given behavior or initiative. My personal preference would be to ensure we have the right folks on that board so we can adjust as we learn. On a personal note I think you’d be an awesome candidate for expansion if interested!
To your first point, the board can also choose to keep excess funds in reserve as we calibrate to determine optimal uses of funding.
Hope this helps, and very open to a formal ‘cap’ if it makes the proposal more digestible for the community.
Hey @Mantis - thanks for this, to be honest I hadn’t thought of this and really like the idea. I’m having an early convo with Horizen Labs later this week and can try to understand feasibility then.
This could be a great way to help us organically grow the treasury that can then be utilized for this type of initiative. CC: @thrivegiraffe
Thank you @Amplify - really appreciate the feedback!
To me the key takeaway is that even while we push forward with AIP-124 as a use of funds it’s important we bring the DAO along and scope/develop the ability to capture revenue.
For the v2 draft how would you feel if we:
Kept the proposal as is for now re: use of funds
Add a second ask to the proposal (likely with a small budget) to request Cartan group scopes the ability to accept funds and comes back to the DAO with a recommendation on feasibility, risk, and cost
If this sounds right I can try to figure out the rough cost needed to take this on and try to work it into the proposal so we have the option in the future.
Thanks for sharing this proposal, Zach. I’m a huge fan of Snag Solutions and - if the community desires - I’m excited for Thank APE to collaborate with you to create even more opportunities for community members to be rewarded for contributions to our ApeCoin DAO.
Two quick notes:
Zach and I have talked at length about this proposal. Thank APE is behind it - and behind whatever variation of it the community desires. If our own AIP passes, we can support it!
I believe the future of ApeCoin DAO is connected to our ability, as a community, to work together well. I love that this proposal is an example of collaboration in action: two separate initiatives working together to create even more value for the community. I believe it can be the first of many such collaborations for ApeCoin DAO!
Thank you!! I think this is definitely worth exploring, but I am hesitant to ask you to include it because I feel like it takes a fairly simple AIP and makes it semi-contentious around liability issues.
I’m just not 100% sure we’re ready to open that can of worms, but I trust your judgement and I would vote for it if it went to snapshot.
Thanks for the response Zach. Would love to explore working more closely with Thank Ape, whether that be as a board member or as a member of the ApeComms team!
Your point makes sense, glad we explored this! I trust your judgement when it comes to whether to implement a formal cap as part of the proposal, looking forward to seeing it come through
Hi @Escape, yes, I’m happy with the feedback received. Based on feedback and conversations I’d like to move into drafts with this proposal with just a few minor changes, but will also likely add a separate proposal on scoping DAO ability to accept funding that can move forward on its own timeline.
Thank you @zheerwagen for your ideas and the ApeCoin DAO community for the thoughtful discussions. A moderator will get in touch with the author to draft the AIP in the appropriate template. Once the AIP is drafted and meets all the DAO-approved guidelines, the proposal will be posted on Snapshot for live official voting at: Snapshot
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments. @zheerwagen please see your messages for the next steps.
Excited to see this come up for vote! This sets a great precedent for DAO-funded initiatives becoming self-sustaining, and demonstrates a playbook for other projects to do something similar
Thanks so much for your proposal. I really like this idea!
I think @Halina had a great idea about splitting the funds between multiple initiatives. I also love your initiative to scope out if the DAO should accept funds. I worry that as time goes on, there will be more and more projects that could bring in income, but will just set up a wallet that will just sit there until the DAO decides what to do with profits. There is no one responsible for tracking it all.
Regarding splitting the funds, what if a portion could go towards a bug bounty program?
Sorry I’m so late to post on this! Agree having the tokens burnt would definitely increase the risk of being viewed as a security and is something we should avoid.
Utilizing the funds to incentivize engagement and participation is interesting, as is the Bug Bounty idea @adventurousape brought up. The best thing about AIP-134 in my opinion was how it opened our eyes to the benefits of a bug Bounty for multiple projects going forward.
Please provide exact information on the multisig, including signers, approval threshholds, etc.
If Thank APE is a potential recipient of DAO funds from Snag that reside in Snag’s proposed multisig (on Twitter), no one from Thrive should be on the multi-sig which is not currently the case. As proposed, it’s a simple majority where 3/7 are from snag and now a 4th (simple majority) from Thrive tips the balance to majority and is poor risk management from the DAO’s perspective and sets a bad precedent going forward.
AIP-139 suggests Snag funds Thrive and AIP-124 suggests Thrive funds Snag: is this appropriate? Feels a bit, well, like dogfooding each other at the expense of the DAO and serves to emphasize the risk vector in item #1. If Thrive’s stated goal is to increase DAO engagement can you clarify how Snag creating listings - a function they’re already being compensated for - increases DAO participation?
UPDATE: Point 2 was clarified in AIP-124. Point 1 was referenced as incorrect, generally stating things changed awhile ago but follow up questions on specifics and source of assertion were not answered.
I love the idea of funding a BBP, but because its critical we have rewards available that are sufficient to incentivize white hats (10%+ of assets at risk) this wouldn’t be a big enough funding source short term.
With this in mind I’m working on a separate proposal requesting funds for an ongoing BBP that supports all non-Staking AIP’s. Excited to share more on this soon, and definitely supportive of the ‘split’ concept generally.
I’ll publish our final multi-sig signers next week before we launch the marketplace, but what I can share for now is: 1) there are no Thrive board members on the multi-sig, Ap3father has been removed 2) we’re also removing one of the Snag team members (tropo or champ) to further reduce risk. Thank you for illuminating the risk on this - we’ll make sure there a max 2/7 ‘collusion’ risk.
I actually think this increased AIP collaboration & coordination is exactly how we should be growing the ecosystem. $APE was launched to be the currency of the interoperable Metaverse and increasing ties and flow of funds across projects helps us create a stable ecosystem with less risk tied to each individual initiative.
2a. I think your diagram is relatively accurate with the exception of the fact that most of the funding for Thank Ape will have use determined by a board of community members, not Daniel, Thrivecoin, or myself. There’s a small implementation fee on the ThriveCoin side, but the vast majority of funds flow back to the community.
2b, If listing/buying on Snag 1) creates an ongoing revenue stream for the DAO 2) saves community members fees, then that’s pretty solid value provided
