AIP-279 - Bored Apes Storm Hollywood (BASH-AIP) - RFC

[SmartAPE]

@AmericanApe

Equally not sure why you decided to post about me rather than address me directly.

I did address you directly by pinging you in the post. What else did you mean?

Anyway, I’m available for any questions and discussions, as always and will continue to use my public social platforms to address concerns that affect a broader group of people than the ones active in this discourse. I prefer not to be passive-aggressively chastised for that, Ser or Madame.

That is your right. And I am pretty sure that nobody here is passive-aggressively chastising you. I am unsure how you came to that conclusion.

In fact, I only created this thread when I saw bigbull post the Twitter link in Discord and asking for comments. I took one look and decided that it was something worth discussing in Discourse not only for your benefit, but also for the benefit of the DAO that awarded you the grant.

First - I’m not confident with this platform’s reach and exposure, because despite posting the AIP-279 draft here initially for the open comment/concern period, those who ultimately voted NO on the AIP did not express a single concern or question here - meaning there’s far less visibility and interaction for debating issues here than on Twitter. There is an echo-chamber of active participants here and, quite frankly, not enough public discussion for DAO progress beyond talk of salaries and AIPs.

Those are valid concerns, however I don’t understand how Twitter - which wouldn’t have any insight into the AIP - is considered a better outlet than here where 1) you got the grant from 2) you have an issue with the contract sent to you by the Ape Foundation as per the grant.

Second - it was the DAO’s legal team that attempted to make my “Work Product” available for exploitation to the “General Public” in their brutally broad “Grant License” clause, so it seemed more than fitting to discuss it in a public arena.

Unless and until you actually agree to and sign the agreement, nothing in it can be considered as binding nor exploitative. And I mentioned above, the public can’t opine on the contract because none of us - besides you, the Ape Foundation and the legal team, have seen it.

So, taking it to the general public - that being Twitter - is making one-sided opinions and statements about a contract that the public hasn’t seen. So, how do you expect the public to give you an accurate assessment of something they haven’t seen? They can’t. Which is why the comments in the Twitter feed are based on your comments about the contract.

Further, by doing that, you put the Ape Foundation in an unfair position and cast it in a poor light, without them having the ability to defend nor explain the contract that you have issues with. Yes, it’s OK to have issues with a contract, but how do you expect to have unbiased and reasonable feedback from a public that hasn’t seen it?

Had I carelessly signed it (as some previous AIP authors may have) anyone in the “general public” - their words, not mine - would be able to reproduce, create derivative works, monetize, sell, resell, distribute, and otherwise exploit the “Work Product” AKA the pilot and I would have forfeited all rights to claim authorship or “control distribution.”

Yes - that’s why people read contracts and not just sign them.

If this response comes across as aggressive, forgive me, but it’s because I am quite perturbed that I even have to have this discussion at all, after going through the entire KYC process and fighting hard daily to counteract the politics of inactive, disinterested and silent APE holders for that final win, only to be hit with this “gotcha” clause.

It reads perfectly fine to me - not aggressively at all. But I don’t see it as a gotcha clause. As someone who regularly issues and receives contracts, it’s attorneys who create these contracts. And most of the time the contracts are boilerplate templates which still need to be revised for a particular situation. And you just hit that limitation. So, don’t be upset about receiving a contract like that; just work through it with them. But only an attorney can assist you with that - not the public which hasn’t seen it nor aware of the scope.

I’ve also learned in the last few hours that the DAO’s legal team isn’t actually presenting each AIP with a “standard” agreement, but I’ll let that AIP Author come forward when they are ready. It seems predatory at best and incompetent legalese at worst. I’m disappointed that this allegedly “standard” agreement hasn’t been discussed before, as it affects all AIP authors who win the community vote, but I’m prepared to discuss it will full transparency so that no one else has to deal with this headache moving forward.

The issue is that there’s no “one size fits all” approach to contracts. Especially for a DAO that gives grants to various types of AIPs.

Also, I don’t understand what you mean by “predatory”. The DAO isn’t profiting from the AIP. It’s basically free money that comes with some conditions.

In fact, I have an AIP related to this very same issue whereby we have no insight to these contracts and legal structures.