It’s actually not laid out in the proposal, and I’m hoping it becomes an Assembly discussion tbh.
Personally, I would like to see any unused amount set aside as reserves for when the Assembly is ready to fund something truly impactful for our community. I do think retroactive public goods funding or some charitable initiatives should be the core of their focus because I don’t think we dedicate enough resources towards those areas in our DAO, and they require “people not tokens” to decide where money goes.
$9000 / mo here, plus $3000 / mo there, plus thanks-rewards for doing the activities one’s already paid to do, multiplied by staking … soon only whales will be in charge and able to decide every vote.
No judgement or opinion on that, just an observation.
Thank you. I thought I did.
Yet no ethical oversight.
As for legal concerns there have already been AIP’s passed and in action which are legal but are ethically dodgy and so already given regulators low-hanging fruit in that regard… regulators who get to make up whatever rules they want as they go, and who are actively going hard after premium brands in the space.
Was it legal for Dapper / NBA Top Shots to post emojis? Absolutely. Was it ethical? Not at all. Are they in serious legal trouble for it? Hell yes. Now the lawyers who should’ve told them not to do so in the first place will probably make even more money defending them. Huh!
I’m unsure where this figure is coming from, or if you are merely hypothecating this scenario.
You can take a thorough look through the available contribution types for our DAO on thankape.com as approved by the Thank Ape Board, of which I am not a member. As far as I am aware, there are no overlapping “tasks” or responsibilities presented in this proposal that are also identified as contribution types on Thank Ape.
I did address this in our other thread. I don’t think this moves the needed on whales, and if whales were the concern, we should be even more on board with the Ape Assembly as they are a 1 vote per person (not token) assembly of highly active governance participants.
As I suggested in our other thread, I would implore you to please consider writing a proposal to address these more systemic DAO-wide issues we’ve been discussing. From what you’re saying, they don’t seem to be exclusive to this particular proposal for further decentralizing and operationalizing our DAO into the hands of the community.
Are there any potential legal or regulatory risks associated with the activities of this AIP?
During our drafting process we’ve reached out for council and are confident this AIP has no legal or regulatory risk associated with it.
Please elaborate on the teams’ expectations for the future.
We expect the Ape Assembly to become a standard for DAO governance and recognizing the importance of incorporating a diverse and active human element into meta-governance structures.
Is the Ape Foundation expected to engage in any of the steps of the AIP implementation? If so, please specify the step and elaborate how it is expected to work.
The Ape Foundation is expected to fulfill invoices as needed up to the DAO approved budgets in this AIP, until such time the two other Stewards and the Secretary have configured the signers of their multisig. The Foundation administrators would be expected to work with and assist the Governance Working Group Stewards and Discourse Facilitators to move AIPs through the process and to Snapshot for DAO voting.
Have you or your team identified any additional financial, operational, or brand risks associated with this AIP?
No.
Your proposal states that “Upon Dissolution of a Working Group, any and all unspent funds will be returned from that Working Group, at the time of dissolution, must be immediately returned to the DAO.”.
Please clarify your expectations for this process.
A part of this proposal ratifies an Initiative called the Ape Assembly, which is made up of hundreds of highly active governance participants within the ApeCoin ecosystem. This Assembly is empowered with a budget and would operate a multi-sig with this budget While not ideal, this multi-sig can be thought of as a “Community Fund” for the Ape Assembly and therefore akin to secondary DAO wallet. There are several other DAO approved multisigs we can use, such as the one approved in AIP-124, or AIP-98, both of which are DAO owned, approved, and operated multisigs.
Under the Working Group Guidelines and Process section, your proposal states that “Only current elected Stewards of the Working Group are eligible to serve as a Lead within that given Working Group” & “Leads may be appointed or removed from that role at any time by a vote among the Stewards of a Working Group, with the outcome of that vote communicated in the ApeCoin DAO governance forum”.
Please clarify how, or if, the Working Group Lead position could be appointed during any interim periods where there may be only one DAO approved Steward appointed.
I think this scenario would only ever apply for this AIP, for this interim period in which I can address immediately that I, Amplify, as a proposed Steward in this AIP would not assume the position of “Lead” until / if such a time came that the other two Stewards elected me to be in that position.
Under the Working Group Guidelines section your proposal states that “In the event that a Steward is removed, steps down, or is unable to continue as a Steward, for whatever reason, any temporary vacant positions will be filled by a contributor selected by the Ape Assembly, until an election to assign a new Steward to that Working Group has been completed.”
Please clarify your expectations for how the Ape Assembly would select a new Steward.
They would gather a list of qualified candidates and vote for an interim solution.
Under the Governance Working Group Mandate and Scope section, your proposal states that the group is responsible for several items including but not limited to: “Providing operational support and project management support for the Foundation.”
Please clarify your expectations for the relationship between the Working Group and the Foundation as it relates to this statement.
The Ape Foundation has custody of the platforms in which our governance process lives, Discourse and Snapshot (authorship). Further, the Ape Foundation has engaged with several service providers in which to facilitate operations in our DAO. It is expected that the Governance Working Group and other Foundation service providers work together in order to facilitate our governance process on Discourse and Snapshot for as long as the website and Snapshot authorship for apecoin.eth is in their custody.
Under the Governance Working Group Reporting Requirements, your proposal states that “The Governance Working Group will publish budget and progress reports to the DAO on a quarterly basis. These reports will include Governance Initiative progress reports and budget expenditures, as well as a summary of the activities within the Governance Working Group for a given quarter.”
Please indicate the first month the DAO should expect one of these reports.
The DAO should expect these reports within a few weeks after March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31.
Do you provide consent to share these questions with the community in this forum?
In the final version of the proposal submitted to the special council, there’s a significant initiative called the Ape Assembly, which is hidden in drop-down texts and not mentioned in the main text.
This is quite deceptive, as the Ape Assembly wasn’t thoroughly discussed or disclosed in most creation group conversations. Also, the upcoming working groups haven’t been launched or made functional yet, and it’s already mid-April.
I don’t support this deceptive approach. I’ve asked, since the beginning of WG0 and even before, to follow the ENS model with a framework and 2-4 additional AIPs for working groups.
The Ape Assembly has been included sneakily, giving hope to potential supporters by suggesting it could fund small grant initiatives and establish internal committees. There may also be a request for more governance control or the appearance of it. The authors often claim this won’t change the process, yet the Ape Assembly is hidden inside.
The steward model used during WG0 wasn’t enjoyable for community members, and this structure likely won’t be either. It doesn’t align with the spirit of the Bored Ape Yacht Club and lacks representation and connection to the culture.
The Ape Assembly was present in the first draft that hit Discourse, it’s not some “hidden initiative” in the AIP. The idea that content in the proposal is “hidden” because it’s using a drop down menu is ridiculous. I expect people will read the proposal, and this includes pressing the drop down buttons.
Second, your narrative that it wasn’t thoroughly discussed is equally false. You’ve been present in the conversations for many months and are fully aware of it’s existence.
You’re aware that a large swath of the “Rules” written into this proposal comes directly from ENS? Including Stewards, the DAO Secretary, multisig requirements, funding windows, elections, pretty much 90% of the structure is ENS working groups.
I invite you to please listen to this ApeCoin Twitter spaces with Alisha.eth, the Governance Lead at ENS:
We sent in the other 3 Working Group Charters for legal review last night, you can expect the other groups on Discourse soon.
This is pure speculation. Anyone is welcome to write an AIP for any reason, at any time. “There may also be…” can apply to literally any criticism you want to make up.
Again, the existence of the Ape Assembly does NOT change “the process,” despite your accusation that it is “hidden.”
Luckily we aren’t the BAYC, but I take your point. What we’re proposing isn’t supposed to be “fun” and “cultured.” We’re proposing Working Groups to perform work for the DAO, like facilitating our AIP process so that our DAO members can continue to suggest, discuss, propose, vote, and implement improvement proposals that come from within our community.
This DAO needs workers to perform tasks in order for it to function. It’s not supposed to be “fun.” It’s work.
@Amplify
Enhance your awareness that I may have attended the mentioned Twitter Spaces event. If you continue to overshadow my posts with lengthy replies, which can occasionally appear condescending as if I haven’t participated in numerous similar events, I will mention any statements you make if you ever decide to pursue a position as a special council member. At this stage, you are obstructing the feedback process by suppressing my genuine concerns.
Subject: Concerns about Ape Assembly Proposal and an Alternative Solution
Dear Community Members,
I’d like to express my concerns regarding the proposed Ape Assembly and suggest an alternative solution. The Ape Assembly proposal is both wasteful and uncertain, with its election and steward model being unsuitable for the primarily secretarial roles. Moreover, it might negatively impact the effectiveness of the existing AIP process.
Instead, let’s focus on distributing ApeCoin to qualified communities to empower their local economies. This would support small businesses, create community storefronts, and establish multi-sig wallets for participating in DAO voting, delegate voting, and self-governing community events and e-commerce stores.
I encourage everyone to vote against the Ape Assembly proposal and support the smaller Community Forum Moderators proposal. This alternative offers a more focused and efficient approach to community engagement. To improve it further, I suggest:
Expanding the proposal to cover essential services.
Granting oversight to the existing Special Council for transparency and accountability.
Allocating a budget of 25,000 ApeCoin monthly for hiring moderators from within the community.
By adopting these recommendations, we can build a more sustainable and effective community support system.
Thank you for considering these points. Let’s work together to make the right decision for our community.
The longer response @0xSword doesn’t like the idea of working groups. That’s totally fair and everyone is allowed to have their own opinion on if they want to decentralize the DAO’s operations to the community or not.
What isn’t fair is that you continue to spread misinformation about what AIP-239 does, what the Ape Assembly is, and the actual cost of the proposal.
As it’s written, your proposal is in no way, “an alternative” to decentralize and operationalize the DAO. Framing it this way only sows confusion instead of providing constructive criticism. Just like you’re doing by naming your proposal, Ape Assembly, which was specifically defined in this AIP and has been part of our public discussion for the last month.
The Ape Assembly’s budget is $10,000 per month for four months to allow high-context DAO members, similar to those in WG0 to undertake initiatives they feel are important to the DAO. This is around $100,000 less than your proposal each month as it stands.
Regarding your perceived lack of certainty – you’ve stated multiple times that you appreciate and believe in what WG0 has done so far, including cutting down AIP review time over half, so I’m very confused why an evolution of that group as part of the DAO’s governance feels so uncertain to you.
I believe in the people that are invested in ApeCoin DAO governance through sweat equity, or voting participation, or large $APE holdings – these are the people that will make up the Ape Assembly, why don’t you believe in them?
It’s clear based on the responsibilities listed for the Governance WG Stewards that these aren’t secretarial roles. The Stewards will be elected by the DAO to lead these autonomous efforts to further decentralize the DAO.
This proposal in no way changes the existing AIP process. Nothing in the proposal suggests anything different, I’m not sure why you continue to focus on an issue that literally doesn’t exist.
We’ve estimated the cost for Discourse Facilitation at $24,000 per month to engage 3 community members to fill these roles. It’s funny that you accuse this proposal of being wasteful and at the same time feel emboldened to request over 4x that amount monthly.
For anyone that made it this far – I encourage all of you to read the proposal, ask any of the Stewards of WG0 if you have any questions about the proposal, and then decide for yourself what makes sense for the future of ApeCoin DAO. Thank you
Thank you for responding. Your TL;DRs are not accurate and may come off as aggressive. I have noticed this type of behavior from you before WG0. If you cannot behave appropriately, including in public forums, and stop bullying, I will raise an ethical concern.
The stewards were first tasked with an RFP and then finding ways for groups to cover core needs instead of Cartan. Continuing with the steward model is risky and does not align with the commitment made to token holders during the BORED voting process. Your proposed suggestion was supposed to fulfill these needs, but it falls short. We are now in the middle of April, and mission statements and unnecessary waste have delayed progress. Forum moderators are in place, the AIP process is working well, and adding more is just fluff. It is wasteful. I will continue to reach out to delegates, but if you continue to be aggressive, it will have consequences. I am willing to escalate this issue to special council, delegates, and others.
Your actions and behavior in this WG have become too personal and have gone beyond the mandate, overreaching the intended purpose. None of the individuals in WG0 Discord or the long overdue working groups, intended to cover core essential services, have been mobilized, and recruitment has been unsuccessful. Additionally, you have personally behaved aggressively towards me and others on public forums, which is unacceptable.
Regarding the stewards, their initial task was to perform an RFP and then find ways for groups to cover core needs instead of Cartan. Continuing with the steward model is risky and does not align with the commitment made to token holders during the BORED voting process. While your mandate and extension was intended to fulfill these needs, it has fallen short. The delay in progress is due to mission statements and unnecessary waste. Forum moderators have been appointed, and the AIP process is functioning correctly, so adding more is unnecessary and wasteful.
I will continue to reach out to delegates, but I caution you that your continued aggression will have consequences. If necessary, I will escalate this issue to special council, delegates, and others. Please refrain from making this personal and focus on achieving the intended goals.
After review, this Topic submitted by @Amplify is ready for vote under AIP-239. The proposal will be posted on Snapshot at the next weekly release date and time, which is every Thursday at 9PM EST.