SC nominee bios are public. Didn’t think for one second this would be any different for Stewards.
1 Like
Public, that’s fine. I got caught up in the language “submitting TO the SC.” Like they can reject you based on your bio.
1 Like
I will help with whatever I can. I’m not stepping away from anything here. We just want to be sure we avoid any potential bad actors.
2 Likes
(post deleted by author)
1 Like
I propose to make the whole STEWARD SELECTION process FAIR, and also inline with the eligibility criteria of working group zero, we adopt the exact same approach for both. (Allows larger ‘pool’ to choose from, as I feel we are excluding so many candidates, including yourself @badteeth lol.)
So, I propose we use the exact same eligibility criteria for both STEWARDS and WORKING GROUP ZERO:
ApeCoin DAO members who have achieved Trust Level Status 2 (Member) or higher on ApeCoin Discourse (the Official communication platform for DAO functions) on or before December 21, 2022; or
$APE holders who have voted on at least 50% of the AIPs that have gone to Snapshot; or
$APE holders with 50,000 APE or more in voting power on or before December 21, 2022.
5 Likes
IMO, the Foundation is orphan in this case, and Cayman Islands Lawyer (Walkers) might not have enough knowledge about DAO law when it involved with international law and especially U.S. law within its jurisdiction. This is a gray zone area that selected SC need to consult with Lawyers and put some effort to make ApeCoin DAO to be compliant and successful, I think…
3 Likes
Thank you @badteeth 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. @badteeth please see your messages for the next steps.
-Escape
2 Likes
I can’t agree that amount of $APE corresponds with willingness or capacity to govern, so I can’t agree with the 50,000 $APE as a criteria for this. I think that’s just sucking up to big holders, which is not a good way to create integrity in the DAO.
Maybe combining the last two — you must hold 50,000 $APE AND have voted in 50% of AIPs — because that actually shows that you’re using $APE to care about what happens here.
1 Like
relaying what we talked about on discord here. know that we only have 7 ours left before the topic closes but it’s still worth noting and echoing the concerns that have already been mentioned.
i think SC should be completely independent and abstain from the process of selecting members of working groups/stewards. seems like a risk to allow a board to essentially select who they want for these roles, and it’s a move toward a more centralized reporting hierarchy that leaves us open to conflict of interests.
also want to throw out there that we may want to clearly define the exact roles + responsibilities that each member of the working group/governance team would play since we are essentially looking for people with specialized areas of expertise.
4 Likes
We’re in a transitionary period, this is conceptually how the appointments came to be:
- One of the main challenges we have is to run an effective RFP process for a new DAO admin asap
- In order to do that we need committed and knowledgeable bodies in the DAO to do the work
- These people will also have to pass KYC
- It takes a minimum of two weeks to run an election
- The SC will be majority 3/5 elected for the first time
- The SC is incentivized to put good people in place to make sure the transition goes well
- In order to reduce any potential for nepotism we limited the possible field of appointees to TL3 members of Discourse - these have been the most engaged people in DAO governance for the longest period of time. Excluding Cartan employees and NFTC who just made it yesterday, there are 12 quality contributors here
There are also controls in place if any Stewards aren’t doing their jobs. WG0 can remove them with a 2/3 majority vote.
Additionally this is a 3-month temporary structure. The mandate of WG0 is to propose structure moving forward and dissolve.
Considering the timeframe we’re up against, having a minority of Stewards 3/7 appointed from the most engaged contributors of the DAO seems like a reasonable path forward.
I hope this gives you some more context on how this came to be and comfort that this isn’t the risk you implied. Thank you
7 Likes
You’re won me over BT lol - let’s get something rolling, only 3 month, worse ways we have ability to change it. Pool is small, but actually can argue they have earned the chance.
2 Likes
I get all of these things. Thanks for putting them in a list here, but it doesn’t get past my main concern:
Why do you determine that current SC are the folks most likely to know how to run an effective RFP process? I haven’t heard anyone, current SC or candidate, speak on RFPs whatsoever in their public statements.
I’ve also noted that many of the DAO’s documents, when referring to Cartan’s responsibilities, simply reword Cayman law. There’s nothing that requires a super high IQ or unique specialty to understand here — just the ability and willingness to research.
WGv0 will move through a process of first deciding which responsibilities to delegate to the Working Groups, then decide on an RFP process based on the responsibilities that will remain with the administrator.
There’s also the issue of creating/empowering a Supervisory group if this is not already in place. No SC sitting or candidate has spoken to my concern of whether the DAO is an orphan or member group and whether those members can populate the Supervisor position that oversees the Board.
Another concern: I care less about ASAP than getting it right.
Another concern: Limiting the appointees to TL3 but then opening up elections to a wider group of less involved people. That seems more a virtue signal to decentralization than a genuine attempt at best structure — and an excuse to dismiss those people’s opinions once in place even though they constitute a numerical majority. If appointees are taken from TL3, then TL3 is the only group that should participate in WGv0 as responsible stewards. That’s assuming people want to keep the appointee as an actual thing, which I oppose vehemently after thinking this through.
I trust the election process. It has already done two things I thought would not be done: 1. remove Cartan from the admin position and 2. elect candidates with lesser reach over influencers with more. THAT is what I trust. Just like SC candidates had to show their organizational skills during their election process, so too should all 7 WGv0 earn their spots by showing their commitment and knowledge of the RFP process to everyone.
1 Like
If you believe this proposal is progress over perfection in a meaningful way then we’d love your support.
If you’re not comfortable having your name as an author I’ll take it off on the final revision.
Please let me know asap, thank you
1 Like
I’m arguing my points so people who want an alternative opinion get a strong argument. I can’t be held responsible if you are getting annoyed at it.
We should be able to agree to remove the $50,000 APE as criteria for WGv0 Stewardship. Even @Gerry tweeted about how @Degentraland is benefitting from this and it definitely doesn’t look good for the process. https://twitter.com/nftgerry/status/1608029707307565056
3 Likes
it does. esp with the 3 month provision to dissolve if there’s no permanent infrastructure in place. thank you!
2 Likes
What do you mean specifically?
1 Like
Love that idea, but then what about many who have many wallets?
3 Likes
So you mean if a person wanted to nominate themselves for WG0 but did not have TL2 and had not voted on 50% of AIPs, but did have 50K apecoin at the time of cutoff/(snapshot), but the 50K was spread across several different wallets?
If yes, then I’m sure this would be such a rare occurrence that the case could be made for manually verifying the wallets, and adding that person into the pool of candidates. If it was up to me, in that situation, that is what I would suggest. Unless ofc, the number of wallets involved was incredibly vast.
What we have to remember, and wat BT and others have pointed out, this is just for a very short period of time, to get things rolling, and is actually what has mellowed me a little, and ofc the late hour we are at with this AIP idea.
Also, everyone should note, 3 stewards will be chosen by SC from the TL3 pool, I think it’s a little over or under a dozen possibles, then the remaining 4 are elected from anyone within the WG0, which will then revert back to TL2 OR own 50K ape OR have voted on 50% of AIPs, to qualify.
I also think these situations are throwing up so much valuable info and insight for next time around and also leads into the hot discussion that’s happening on TWITTER rn re voting. So personally I’ve chilled a little, happy to see what happens and at the same time will be looking to jump into any WGs, GD threads and AIP ideas to address the best practices and methods we should adopt in the future and build the best DAO possible.
4 Likes
Revisions are live now, thank you to everyone for their hard work and valuable input in crafting something that can truly help move the needle for ApeCoin DAO!
12 Likes
At work, we will have to roll up our sleeves !
8 Likes