Riffing off @Dar 's idea above, and open to anyone that has an opinion on this.
If it makes sense to add something like “DAO can’t accept profits, etc…” in wording on Snapshot, what about something along the lines of “Your vote is on ONLY what is in the AIP, and NOT on anything stated in Spaces, Discourse threads, Discord or elsewhere.”
Reason is that if you look at an AIP, a crucial link might have 5 clicks but 500+ ppl are voting so what is their vote based on? Often AIPs contain a lot of “may, will, could” vague language which is bad enough, but anything said elsewhere is totally irrelevant and can’t be held accountable.
Too much like IRL voting, with inevitably the same disappointing results when “promises” aren’t kept.
Off the top, I’d like to see SC (if it’s within their scope?) better ensure that an AIP when it goes to vote includes all corrections, clarifications, promises, etc. - or notes on what can or can’t be done, like accepting profits - before it goes to vote.
Your topic will be moving to the AIP Draft phase in less than 24 hours. Are you content with the feedback received or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?
If we do not hear from you within 48 hours after your topic closes, your topic will be moved straight to the AIP Draft process.
Am a bit swamped IRL, and there’s a few different discussions / ideas along similar lines floating around right now.
Please extend once more. I’m hoping for more input on the last item above, and need a bit more time to parse out which parts will go to a draft AIP - I expect for now just the idea of a higher threshold for items impacting fundamentals of the purpose, process or culture of the DAO.
It’s a serious thing that could have lasting impact, so I’d like to take the time to do as well as possible with as much feedback as people care to provide.
I don’t think that I’ll pursue my AIP idea to require a fee on certain proposals but would like to see 2/3 inclined for any AIP with an implementation cost of > 5000 APE.
Will your proposal contain some version of this or should I think about submitting a separate proposal?
I’m still cautious to see any changes to that stuff. Especially since we’re just getting going. If this proposal goes to vote at the wrong time, it could be passed in a kneejerk reaction by voters. My question for the author is: How many proposals wouldn’t have passed that are currently?
I’m trying to understand the motivation behind moving this forward. Thank you!
For me it’s to prevent expensive special interest proposals from getting passed on a slim margin. A good chunk of the things we see going to vote right now are startups trying to use us as a slush fund in exchange for accepting APE. The ROI is painfully low.
I understand that. I don’t have current data on what would’ve passed throughout the last year if there was 2/3 vote required. I’d be interested to look at it. I’m also unsure how the new(ish) abstain option would play into. All data points to look at. It’s definetly worth discussing! I just personally take a cautious approach.
Your topic will be moving to the AIP Draft phase in less than 24 hours. Are you content with the feedback received or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?
If we do not hear from you within 48 hours after your topic closes, your topic will be moved straight to the AIP Draft process.
For now it seems to me the consensus view, and most time-sensitive, is to move ahead with AIP proposing a higher vote threshold for altering AIP-1 or other fundamental tenets of the DAO (and perhaps its operations)? We can all cobble that Draft together in the next phase, imminently.
Abstain option did perhaps throw an unintended wrench into the gears. The past week’s voting suggests so.
I agree with @secengjeff that simply adding $APE to a list of payment options is low, or no, value. I don’t know if a higher vote threshold truly solves for that, or would have historically. I do believe the threshold, even if it stays the same, should be consciously decided and not just accepted as a default much less to merely default copy the going show that’s IRL voting.
The use of a 2/3 super majority is a pretty common default for anything that is highly consequential and therefore requires strong consensus. The US Constitution, EU treaties, UN Charter, and many corporate board all require this level of super majority for structural changes.
Granted, none of them to my knowledge require this for budgeting. But if we did want to raise the bar on spending this feels like a good go to. Yes, some arguably wasteful things will still get through but at least then we know that it was clearly consensus based.
As for abstain, IMO it doesn’t count. You need 2/3 yea votes.
I’ve been asked to make small edits to make the AIP Draft compliant, which I’m fine with. Awaiting clarity on a minor point.
Meanwhile, please offer any feedback or points you’d like to see included in the Draft.
Specifically, there are some questions I included in the Draft which were meant to spur discussion and answers on those points. I’m unsure if those can remain in the Draft, so will repeat those questions here:
Proposal Name:
2/3 “Super Majority” Requirement to Alter Fundamental Tenets of ApeCoin DAO and Its Operations as outlined here: ApeCoin DAO Governance
Should anything be added that isn’t in the link?
Should this apply to instituting new Working Groups?
Just to clarify, did you by chance mean 50,000 or even 500,000 APE? 5k seems like a super tiny budget in the sense that it would apply to just about every proposal submitted, not just the bigger ones that you want this rule for, if I understood correctly.
Supermajority voting can be useful, but I fail to see its effectiveness in our current token-weighted voting system. It would exacerbate the ability for whale voters to determine the outcome of votes as opposed to representing the will of the people voting.
Take AIP-239 for example. It passed with 4.1m votes in favor to 3.3m votes against, but this would have failed a 2/3 supermajority vote.
If you dig into the numbers you’ll see that 43.5% of the for/against votes were cast by only two wallets.
254 wallets with 1 $APE or more voted in favor/against - 193 in favor, 61 against. Based on wallet voting this would have met the 2/3 supermajority.
As I mentioned in my first comment here, voting mechanics discussions are really important. Finding the optimum solution between 1 person = 1 vote and 1 token = 1 vote feels like one of the most pressing issues facing not just ApeCoin, but virtually all DAOs governance processes.
Below are the 7 proposals (out of 45 passed) and their costs that would have failed if a 2/3 supermajority was required for token voting. All of them except AIP-230 would have passed the 2/3 supermajority based on voters by wallet for/against with at least 1 $APE.
AIP-41: Keep ApeCoin within the Ethereum ecosystem - $0
AIP-66: ApeCoin Newsletter - 14,400 Apecoin
AIP-134: Bug Bounty Program for AIP-21 - 1,000,000 Apecoin
AIP-104: Bringing Web3 to Educators & Schools - $84,951
AIP-173: Add new Discourse Category for “Administrative Review - $0
AIP-230: "I don’t hate apes, I just want them to fund public goods!” - $1,000,000
AIP-239: Working Group Guidelines & The Governance Working Group Charter - $180,000
Since we do have a token-weighted system, I’ll leave it to others to discuss hypotehtical results other systems - that are equally problematic if not more so - may have produced. I stress may since we don’t know what the votes would have been under those systems - in other words many vote based on the system that exists and the results they see along the way before they vote.
Having seen the gong show of some recent votes - particularly the Working Group Charter - going forward I will remove the Abstain option for votes of fundamental importance.
I state this in part because it’s clear many are not sure what the purpose of Abstain actually is, and whether or not it does (or should) count. Stewards have recently proposed to clarify it, while at least one SC member has openly discussed taking initiative to hide the Abstain totals or not have them reflect in the percentage totals despite having no mandate or authority to do so (per the “Abstain” AIP that was passed), and despite that being totally opposite to how any credible operation shows voting results.
“Abstain” is problematic or confusing on many levels as it stands today, and on issues fundamental to the DAO or its operations I’ve yet to read or hear any argument why there should be an Abstain option. There wasn’t an Abstain option for election of new Cayman admins, for example.
The gray area will be on what constitutes “fundamental”. The new Working Groups Charter is very arguably - I would say certainly - a fundamental change, while others say it isn’t. Perhaps we’ll find out.
