Thank you @Vulkan 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. @Vulkan please see your messages for the next steps.
-Pearson
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
@Vulkan has completed editing their AIP Idea to be their AIP Draft.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.
Kind Regards,
-Pearson
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
Our team has reviewed and discussed @Vulkanâs AIP Draft and have sent a list of initial questions. We await answers.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.
Kind Regards,
-Pearson
This is worth a repost â there should be no black boxes in this DAO, or itâs not a DAO. Checks and balances are an essential part of a modern working governance structure. This AIP helps to establish that. Thereâs more to do, but this is a good start.
Most probabaly they will start to ignore your proposal since you will submit it. They did the same with mine when I asked for the same: To reveal what is hidden in the DAO management system
BTW some screenshots about how the âDAOâ works.
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
@Vulkan has responded to our questions and they are in our review once again.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.
Kind Regards,
-Pearson
Wow⌠this is a lack of proper execution from the Cartan group which I believe are the ones that are hiring the moderators to keep up with the communication/s of the community. This is a critical problem and a solution is needed, hopefully establishing moderator response time guidelines will help.
This particular AIP is a very unique case IMO. Itâs labeled as a Process AIP that would directly interfere with the work performed by the Special Council. The ApeCoin Board is under strict NDAâs which directly conflict with the request in this AIP requiring the Special Council to deliberate in public all of their thoughts on a particular AIP.
Itâs not only unrealistic, itâs impossible. If we require actors in the DAO to only deliberate through Discourse, many actors will either stop sharing their thoughts all together, or simply bypass these communication channels anyway due to necessity and urgency in timing. Itâs much easier to have a quick conversation in Discord or DMs than it is to strike up a timely conversation on the forums.
The AIP goes on to specify that âTotal time allocated to Administrative Reviews of proposals by the Special Council should be limited by 14 daysâ which I think is not realistic given the sheer volume of AIPs, and diligence needed to review. Again, forcing the Special Council to discuss AIPâs in the public discourse forums greatly prologues the process due to the nature of how forums work. People respond when they have time.
I am not speaking for the ApeCoin Administrators, Moderators, or Special Council, but my opinion on this AIP is it directly conflicts with the Special Councilâs responsibilities and is simply not enforceable. You cannot restrict conversation in any aspect, nor can you force it to happen on a particular medium.
I wouldnât personally âfoceâ a conversation but also having someone wait for 2 months just for a reply is not acceptable in my opinion. Even just a reply that says: âWeâre looking into your case and weâll get back to you after the proper due diligence has concluded which can take anywhere between 2-4 weeks.â could help.
I believe the current Special Council is lacking execution, or maybe theyâre so busy with other things that the DAO is not on the top of their priority list, but I believe this will change with the upcoming nominations and new Special Council Members.
âWeâre looking into your case and weâll get back to you after the proper due diligence has concluded which can take anywhere between 2-4 weeks.â could help.
I want a specific metric for this, as in if your AIP number gets skipped, you get an explanation.
but I believe this will change with the upcoming nominations and new Special Council Members.
I canât rely on new elections of the Special Council to fix this problem. Thatâs not web3 gang gang at all; it relies on luck of the draw, getting somebody who wants to do right. Code is law, dudes, we must stick to that and promote it
Hey, Amp! Is this in response to AIP-80 or my proposal in this thread?
I believe itâs directed at AIP-80 (and agree with what youâre saying here by the way), but I want to make sure I address it and not leave you hanging if itâs part of this thread.
Shoot good catch, Iâm so sorry!
My comments were in reference to AIP-80. 
I want a specific metric for this, as in if your AIP number gets skipped, you get an explanation.
Agreed. The goal of this proposal is to increase transparency in the proposal process but not to have things slip through to live voting before they are ready. In other words, a response of âWe are looking into your proposalâ wouldnât help the transparency much imo. I would like to see more specifics provided. If itâs going to take longer to review something that is totally fine, but I want to know exactly why it will.
I canât rely on new elections of the Special Council to fix this problem. Thatâs not web3 gang gang at all; it relies on luck of the draw, getting somebody who wants to do right. Code is law, dudes, we must stick to that and promote it.
Agreed, Iâm not one to wait around for someone else to fix a problem. If I see something that can be fixed Iâm going to act on it now. The Special Council elections will also run until the end of December and any new nominees would possibly take several weeks to get up to speed. This is something I think we can address now rather than waiting another couple of months.
Yeah agree with both of your points here.
I believe the reason why the moderators are ignoring my proposals is simply because they were instructed by Special Council to kill the proposals. This way beneficiaries can simply control what will go to DAO voting and what will not. In the worst case they will blame moderators, who are anonymous, so no one will be responsible for that.
If this is true, the ApeCoin DAO is a total fake.
If this is accurate then I believe there needs to be someone seating on the Special Council that incrases the overall accountability of the whole, someone who the community can reach and open dialogue and conversations. Weekly reports is one of the solutions that comes to mind. Instead of defending the status quo of a few people only because of selfish personal interest.
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
We have sent a list of follow up questions. We await answers.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.
Kind Regards,
-Pearson
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
@Vulkan has responded to our questions and they are in our review once again.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.
Kind Regards,
-Pearson
Agreed. This also brings me back to Vulkanâs response higher up where they mention not even being totally certain exactly how many moderators there even are here, let alone who they are. This isnât particularly sensitive information⌠we all have profiles that detail our specific usage, and while Iâm not saying we should have that for moderators the point is that the data is retrievable and capable of being openly shared. Iâm advocating strongly for full transparency here, even amidst details that many might deem trivial. It ALL matters.
