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
