AIP-277: Re-evaluating ApeCoin DAO Special Council Salaries Structure

Indeed. However, we don’t need to be in a court of law in order to use terminology that’s befitting the discussion re: your opinions which are masquerading as facts.

1 Like

Yes, a majority by any margin (even the tiniest)

I do not believe that I was attempting to convey my opinions as facts. I spoke directly with a SC member who previously stated they are in constant contact with legal to ensure AIPs meet all legal standards. Of course it’s possible that things have changed since that point in time.

Remember that you’re dealing with people who are all trying to make things better.

2 Likes

True. But if the body responsible for reviewing and approving the AIP refuses to do so, what do you believe should be the remedy? Inaction? You do know that’s text book corruption and self-dealing, right?

As to the vote, that’s irrelevant here. Let the community decide, The only way to do that is to put up the AIP for vote.

And someone is probably smart enough to buy up $3.2M (no, I didn’t pick that number out of a hat) in $Ape, delegate all of it, and completely kill the whales chances of gaming the vote. Just to prove a point.

1 Like

And there it is. Thanks for making my point.

ps. Also, that’s called “hearsay” btw

Of this I have no doubt.

Also, I don’t believe that anyone here thinks that machinations of corruption and self-dealing shouldn’t be addressed head-on. This is crypto; the whole concept has been usurped by bad actors. So, we can’t just go with the status quo. I mean, the whole “Trust, but verify” concept isn’t just something you utter for lip service. And so, this DAO - which I am now a part of - has to be held to a higher standard. And that means doing everything by the book. No exceptions.

2 Likes

I just wanted to add context to my assertions that the SC failure to bring this AIP up for vote, by keeping it in indefinite admin revieww, is a clear violation of the DAO mandates, as well as a violation on a DAO member’s rights.

Exhibit 1:

AIP-1 : Proposing The DAO - Process

GUIDELINES

  1. Every year, there is a DAO-wide vote to determine which DAO members will serve on a special council on the APE Foundation (the DAO’s “Board”). The purpose of the Board is to administer DAO proposals and serve the vision of the community.
  2. A Board member may be removed and replaced prior to the term pursuant to a majority vote of token holders.
  3. The total cost of implementation must be clear in order for a proposal to go to vote.
  4. DAO members must search past proposals to ensure any idea they intend to write a proposal for has not already been submitted.
  5. If a suggested proposal directly conflicts with a proposal that is currently up for vote, the second proposal should not go for a vote until a decision is made on the first proposal to avoid approval of opposing requirements.
  6. A suggested proposal that directly conflicts with another approved proposal cannot go to vote for three months after the original proposal has been implemented to avoid wasting community assets.
  7. Proposals will not be considered/put up for a vote if they involve illegal activity, hate speech, pornographic material, or are at odds with the mission or values of the APE Foundation.

Exhibit 2:

AIP-137 : The Special Council Nomination Process

Exhibit 3:

AIP-138 : The Special Council Election Process

Exhibit 4:

AIP-173 : Add new Discourse category for Administrative Review

And for reference purposes:

The Webslinger RFP

The Webslinger Formal Bid

1 Like

I already stated similar commentary in the thread. But that’s not relevant to the fact that the AIP was put in indefinite admin review without stating why that is.

Some, not all. There doesn’t appear to be a securities lawyer involved, for example, and obviously ethical standards and basic standards of financial reporting aren’t being addressed.

3 Likes

Good to know. Thank you br00no.

1 Like

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

After review, this Topic submitted by @Moonlyght has been “Returned for Clarification”. The ApeCoin Special Council waits for answers, and the community will be notified whenever the author responds.

Kind Regards,

@Lost.Admin

2 Likes

For full transparency, who are the two facilitators?

2 Likes

There’s an active discussion currently going on in the Discord general forum. There, both Gerry and BoredApeG appeared and provided some clarity to the situation.

Discord sucks at data preservation and tracking, so I took screen shots of the pertinent comments which I believe provide some clarity. I will post them in a bit.

2 Likes

Thanks for the heads up. It’s curious that this was sent back only today - after all this time. Optics.

Anyway, since you would know, can you please tell us the exact date that this AIP was moved to admin review? ty

1 Like

You can use this link to go directly to where the discussion starts.

1 Like










3 Likes









But basically, both Gerry and G have provided what I personally believe to be plausible reasons for this AIP seemingly being on hold.

Following the Discord exchange, Gerry did provide additional insight as to why several other AIPs were reviewed and sent to vote even as this one appeared to be stuck.

Here’s what G said here:

4 Likes

I was on a call with the following members from Webslinger:
Inam, Tyler, Sep, Matt, Cerebrous

4 Likes

Just received this update from @Lost.Admin. Will address and think about the next steps.

2 Likes

This is a very startling and disappointing turn of events.

So, basically, what this is saying here is that if the AIP passes - which we won’t know because it’s not even sent to vote - then the employment contracts of the current SC would be breached if any attempt is made to reduce the salaries awarded to them by the community.

I actually expected for this AIP to go up to vote as-is, and let the chips fall where they may.

This probably means that @badteeth own AIP-272 is likely to face similar hurdles.

I need to sleep on this before I comment any further because I want to be fair to the SC and the AIP author while taking into account the need for transparency in the community.

But again, this is all about optics - and it’s not looking good right now.

4 Likes

AIP-282 is a simple information request that has been in Admin Review for about three weeks. Can’t imagine it will face any of the same hurdles as this AIP.

Ape Foundation and SC could also just provide the information about the SC role and negate the need to waste any more time with process here. Hopefully we’ll find out one way or another soon,

BT

6 Likes