AIP-265: 2/3 "Supermajority" Requirement to Alter Fundamental Tenets of ApeCoin DAO and its Operations

[Ms_NFTy]

WOW. This is a great share. I appreciate you taking the time to outline for the community. Good points.

[CryptoLogically]

@br00no

There wasn’t an Abstain option for election of new Cayman admins, for example.

I believe there was. Every AIP since the Abstain was implemented has provided that option.

[br00no]

What … the … !? Thanks.

I just re-read that AIP thread recently in which it was made clear there was no option BUT to select one of the two new Admins.

Possibly I misinterpreted something. At least one of them got more than 50% of the vote.

Will revisit that thread and edit this post or post an update.

EDIT: Here’s my original post - Request for Proposal: Cayman Islands Administrator for the APE Foundation - #4 by br00no

In part, I asked:

@br00no

What are ramifications / timelines if one or all are not approved by vote?

Reply is 2 posts below it, which states:

@Waabam

The RFP vote will be structured so that one of the options must be selected. Voters will have the option to choose Webslinger, Autonomous+Lemma+Provenance, or abstain.

Either I’ve pitch-shifted from a parallel dimension which did not include Abstain, or interpreted it to mean we shall have a clear “winner”. 50/50 odds, but let’s go with the latter b/c at the time I was thinking Abstain counted (implied in my question) and maybe I never made it to the last word in the sentence the many times I read it.

Apologies! Someplace recently I replied to @adventurousape that this vote had been a precedent for no Abstain. If I can find that post, I will edit out this error there too.

Meanwhile, precedent awaits us in this different dimension! And I was wrong.

[CryptoLogically]

All good, amigo! I just appreciate how you aren’t afraid to tackle these difficult (and at times, divisive) issues. We need more of this, imho.

[br00no]

I have recently submitted revisions, putting this idea in its simplest form and pertaining only to votes on changes of fundamental tenets of the DAO. I believe it’s in process of admin review in order to evolve this “idea” into a “draft”.

We can then cobble the draft to decide whether additional ideas and caveats in the thread “should” be included and if so what those who came up with the ideas would like the wording to be.

I’m pretty neutral on it and do not see it as “my” AIP, as it was meant to cause 1. valuable discussion (it did, and will further if it goes up for vote) and 2. vote collectively in favor of a given threshold even if it remains the default threshold we have now.

[Lost.Admin]

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@br00no has updated their Draft and it is in our review. You can check out the changes by clicking the pencil icon at the top right of the post.

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.

Kind Regards,

@Lost.Admin

[br00no]

Thanks!

@Sasha given focus of this AIP is narrowed to:

@br00no

This AIP proposes ratifying the existing default 50%+1 threshold or revising the approval threshold to 2/3 “super majority” (excluding Abstain votes) for changes or additions to fundamental tenets of the DAO or its operations, as defined here: ApeCoin DAO Governance

Are you still of the opinion that the to pass this AIP it should require a 2/3 approval vote (presuming there’s even a way to do so)? Ref:

@Sasha

Would you be comfortable adding a stipulation to the AIP that it should only be considered “passed” if the % of pass votes is same or higher than the proposed new percentage?

E.g. if the AIP suggests 60/40 and it only passes with 59% of votes, it should be manually adjusted to rejected/failed.

Seems fair that same standard is applied to this AIP as it proposes we apply to others. This is to serve as a test if the suggested new numbers are achievable/realistic.

@br00no

Thank you, Sasha.

I’m comfortable with the consensus of people participating in the discussion.

AND yes, I was thinking about this just yesterday. Hadn’t thought of the solution you propose, which seems simple and obvious. So yes I will make this part of any discussion / draft going forward.

[Vulkan]

Hey @br00no,

I’m sorry if I missed this explanation in the thread, but could you please provide some additional details on what would qualify as a fundamental tenet? What criteria would the DAO use to determine whether or not an AIP qualifies as such?

@br00no

for changes or additions to fundamental tenets of the DAO or its operations

Thanks,

Vulkan

[Lost.Admin]

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

Our team has reviewed and discussed @br00no’s 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,

@Lost.Admin

[br00no]

Thanks, Vulkan.

Fundamental Tenets of ApeCoin DAO and Its Operations, as outlined here: ApeCoin DAO Governance

@Vulkan

What criteria would the DAO use to determine whether or not an AIP qualifies as such?

I wish I knew. It’s something I need help with. If people care to define it, and arguably we should - as much as a Mission Statement is important and broad, maybe we need a “constitution” document to specifically detail what constitutes a fundamental tenet. We almost certainly will need that someday.

Here’s where I’m at, which of course anyone is most welcome to comment on:

1. As a personal value, dropping this is not OK because…

2. It came from broad discussions many seemed to care about, and I offered to move it forward so I’m trying my best, however…

3. It was always meant to distill and reflect collective ideas on pass / fail threshold, and on Abstain option and other voting structures which have since been covered elsewhere, so …

4. If all this does is spark in-depth discussion on pass / fail thresholds, for what kind of vote and when, and the vote is “no” to this AIP then we have effectively consciously adopted the current default 51% pass / fail for votes on anything and for any type of consequence, and IMO that’s much better than just riding out the default.

Is it better to drop that “fundamental tenets” clause or deal with defining it elsewhere - maybe as next step after Mission Statement?

I don’t know. I don’t even know that I’d care too much how the vote goes, though I do feel as (many?) others do that some votes of a certain consequence (however we define that) “should” be held to a higher pass threshold. Maybe it doesn’t really make a difference in a weighted voting system such as ours. It’s not my area of expertise and not for me to decide.

Is an AIP the wrong approach? I know abandoning something I said I’d move forward is not the right approach, and here we are.

[Lost]

Hi @br00no,

I think the overarching category you’ve defined as “fundamental tenets”, supplemented by the link you provided, creates a fairly clear definition/expectation for which ideas would require the supermajority.

You could further specify in the proposal here that the expected sub-categories under Fundamental Tenets would be (from the link):

• DAO Membership eligibility and expectations
• Guiding Values of the DAO (as defined by AIP-1 and the ApeCoin website link above)
• Impactful decisions regarding official Communication channels
• the DAOs proposal process - including categories for submission, the proposal template, mandated phases on a proposal (as defined by the link and AIP-1)
• the DAOs conflicting proposal policy
• the DAOs voting mechanism/platform and process

In addition to proposals regarding any of the four specific things listed under the Future Expectations for the DAO on the website:

• Hiring DAO members to take care of administrative, project management, and moderation tasks to replace the company appointed
• Creating a community-steering committee
• Implementing on-chain voting
• Voting annually to elect members for the DAO’s Board

It seems that all of the above criteria could be more easily communicated by indicating “Process” proposals, rather than using the term “fundamental tenets” with the additional sub-categories. However, I’m not 100% positive that the effect would be the same by simply indicating “Process” proposals, or specifically that some proposals wouldn’t submit/qualify for submission under a separate category, which would then avoid the more critical supermajority voting requirement.

Thanks for hosting the topic,
@Lost

[br00no]

I cannot thank you enough for this valuable, thorough feedback.

It means a lot, especially coming from you who has so much experience in this.

Ofc more feedback, from anyone, is still most welcome and helpful.

[MaCrypto]

I’ve read what you’ve written and find it very relevant to the evolution of DAO

[br00no]

Thanks very much. I think so too, but we’ve hit some roadblocks and it doesn’t seem to be the kind of thing the community overall is interested in.

Better left to Ape Assembly perhaps, to have a broader conversation on voting methods and thresholds?

[br00no]

With best intentions, having carried this torch as far as I’m able to sincerely go down this path…

After getting considerable feedback from various angles and persons holding very different views on the merits or feasibility of this idea, I believe it’s served the purpose of furthering the topic’s discussion and that it’s best to leave this to Ape Assembly (which didn’t exist when this thread was started) or other threads discussing voting options.

Gonna call that a “win”, as that’s what this AIP was really meant to do - spark related discussions and inspire us to be deliberate about what voting processes or thresholds we do wish to adopt and what, if any, tenets of the DAO are sacrosanct.

Apologies if it lets anyone down. Those openly interested seem to have dropped out of the discussion and process quite awhile ago, or haven’t been able to empower me (nor am I able on my own) to address some key questions and concerns required to move this forward as an AIP at this time.

My personal road block is in specifically defining the fundamental tenets clause - and see Lost’s valuable post a few posts above this one.

It is not defined by the DAO to begin with, and it’s not up to me to define much of what he (and others) have brought up… or it’s not in the spirit or scope of this AIP however absolutely needs to be done. That may be its own AIP (or series of AIP’s?). I hope so.

@Lost to close this up, with thanks, and please count me in for any initiatives or discussions to help define some of those tenets.

[Lost.Admin]

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@br00no has requested to withdraw their application. This AIP will be moved to and remain in the Withdrawn AIPs category.

Kind Regards,

@Lost.Admin