I am going to write a synopsis of where we are, what I think, and why I believe that this incident has exposed serious flaws and mandate failures in the DAO. In comparison, only the voting system for which I intend to submit an AIP , trumps this.
For reference, please refer to my previous comment which has relevant links.
2022
2023 (legacy salaries are the same)
These are my opinions. I gain nothing by expressing them. In fact, I believe that I have a lot to lose because nobody likes that one guy who gets to kick over the apple cart, regardless of how they proclaim to be fair, open and transparent. In most communities some people would rather read and be on the sidelines than opine and engage in contentious subjects. It doesn’t mean that they’re not reading and making their own judgements.
On Jun 11, an OG member of the DAO, decided to create this AIP because the author felt that the salaries, setup by the legacy DAO, were too high. Arguably, when personalities - both public figures - like Alexis and Yat were in the SC, it’s easy to justify those salaries because that’s how having big and notable names in a board, works. Then the new elections came around and only two members of the SC were changed - retaining the legacy pay of $20,833 per month. And only the Ape Foundation know who they are due to KYC as per their contracts.
Somehow, despite the fact that it’s been this way for a year, these salaries caused a stir that spilled over into social media and press, promoting public comments from even Yat himself.
To be clear - and this bears repeating here for completeness - I did not support this AIP because it failed to highlight a plausible reason for having the salaries cut. Saying “it’s too high” is subjective and insufficient; especially since the SC was voted in with these same salaries. However, the author and others have since expressed concern about what the SC actually does in order to command these salaries. See @badteeth AIP–282.
Moving along…
The gist of this incident controversy is that the AIP has been seemingly stuck in SC admin review for quite some time; even as other AIPs came - including financial and more legally complex one such as AIP-279 which asked for and received $300K - and went up for vote.
The optics of this has been such that, with no word from the SC to neither the author nor the community, the speculation has been that the SC couldn’t very well approve a vote of an AIP that seeks to cut their salary by 50%.
In the past 48 hrs, a lot more info has come to light about what has transpired, as well as what has been communicated to the author.
The Ape Foundation, by way of Gerry and BoredApeG, explained to me in Discord, what actually transpired, how their hands were tied etc. For transparency, I created images of the exchange which I posted in a prior post above.
While I am finding it hard to understand how such a simple AIP like this could be stuck in limbo, even if queued AIPs are processed in parallel (as opposed to FIFO) so as not to hold up the queue, I am left wondering whether or not this AIP would have ever made it out of admin review were it not for the resilience and persistence of the author, as well as the ongoing controversy. Setting aside all the conspiracy theories here in the thread.
To be perfectly honest, I was simply having a hearty laugh this whole time - until I started looking at it closely with the author, doing the research etc. If you guys are familiar with my personality, you would know that I routinely inject humor whenever I can. I am a lifelong OG gamer. We lol at everything.
Anyway, as things go, just like that, yesterday the AIP was taken out of admin review and sent back to the author - with a reason. That being, this AIP would put the foundation in breach of preexisting SC contracts.
I get it. It makes sense. And they are correct.
But here’s the thing:
Why did it take this long for the SC to notify the author, and to take this action? They had to have known - for over a month, and amid controversy, that this would be a legal issue. This couldn’t have been some recently discovered revelation.
Then they asked the author to modify it take into account the next SC group - next year.
That being the case, and setting that aside, the instruction to the author that the AIP should be modified to focus on new term contracts, is what I believe to be a gross violation of the DAO mandate as in AIP-1 which states:
Further - and pay attention here - there’s this:
“A Board member may be removed and replaced prior to the term pursuant to a majority vote of token holders.”
Herein lies the rub.
if a board member, for example, an SC member who is on contract to the DAO, can be up for a vote for removal - at any time and for whatever reason and regardless of their contract - why then can’t the DAO similarly vote to reduce their salaries within the same term?
Are we now in a situation whereby an SC member can :
- flagrantly violate the rules of the DAO
- be accused or or even found guilty of a crime in real life
…and they can’t be up for a vote because that would be a violation of the DAO legal obligations as per the SC member contract?
This is a massive problem and a huge liability for the DAO. Please, do not - even for a moment - regard this as hyperbole or scaremongering. This is real.
I believe that the solution to this problem is to send the AIP up for vote - as was originally written by the author - and let the community decide as per the DAO mandate, and as the founders intended it. Then, if it passes, then it’s up to the legal team - that we’re paying $75K a month - to navigate the legal and contractual issues presented. My guess is that, unless the legal team gave contracts to the SC and which cannot be modified or terminated - in blatant violation of the DAO mandate - there should be no problem in modifying those contracts to remain compliant with the DAO.
The other issue is that the contracts of anyone employed by the DAO must be made available to every member upon request. As I type this, the AIP author is still waiting for a response to the request for the SC contracts which they claim this AIP would violate. Again, “Trust, but verify”.
To wit, AIP-1 states:
"In keeping with the core APE Foundation value of transparency, all ideas and commentary in Discourse, proposals, votes cast, and voting outcomes will be publically available to view."
Now is the time to prove it via this test.
Then there’s this related issue:
Note that the lack of clarity as to what the SC actually does for $250K per year each, boils down to the Experience and Expectations of Applicants section of AIP-137 above. You should read it to better understand why something like AIP-282 is even needed, when in fact the SC could simply put up a page with the requested info.
Why is an AIP needed for the community to get answers as to what the SC does for $1,250,000 per year in DAO expenses? Why!?
My conclusion is that the SC of the Ape Foundation has either knowingly or unknowingly placed itself outside the realms of DAO governance. It is a gross negligence and violation that needs to be immediately corrected in the name of transparency and for the benefit of the DAO.
That is all.