This is part of the idea to establish a working framework to have separate sister-DAOs that are still governed by the community. There is another AIP that discusses these elements but that is more complex to establish where as a more focused AIP on a set of specific tasks but operating in this manner is im my view more pragmatic - short term - and can also be seen as a good operating case.
Keeping the team smaller can help, because the function in question is fairly specific as compared to an all-purpose DAO the infrastructure to maintain is can be significantly smaller. In the end this is the nature of any DAO when it comes to decision making and I would add that the $ape ecosystem, all things considered, is actually holding up quite well in a relative sense.
That is not to say more cannot be done, infact much more should be done to grow and support the ecosystem, that is the whole point of all of the AIPs!
Thank you for the comments and these are all fair points that we can incorporate into the final AIP and your âreading between the linesâ is an astute observation. Sometimes too much detail can confuse but as Joshua Reynolds best put it; Simplicity is an exact medium between too little and too much
Now that you mention it, the scope of this idea is what has sparked more questions than answers. While I did have all my answers, as I mentioned above, thereâs so much more missing. And your eloquently stated list is testament to this.
As I stated previously, the sister DAO needs to be started first. Then, by its mandate, can have its own leaders, budget etc. And that team would be the handlers for marketing, bizdev, licensing etc. In fact, itâs a better fit for what we originally envisioned the incoming Metaverse Working Group to be in the current DAO. Doing it this way allows for parallel activities such as Yatâs NFT purchasing & licensing idea, games, branding, marketing etc.
And that DAO should be a smaller and closed one that only comprises of the team running it. This avoids all the drama and voting shenanigans that are rife in the main DAO. It would basically be an autonomous DAO as Yat suggested, and operated like a startup with funding from the main DAO via grants or loan vehicles.
Indeed. The biggest issue in using a DAO for the purposes of bizdev like this is that the process of getting anything done, let alone funded, is a massive roadblock. And ofc, who wants to spend time trying to get something done, only to see it fail at AIP? This is why I suggested that the sister DAO be setup first and with a mandate and guidelines that speed things up, not bog them down.
Ya, I think an advisory role should solve that. And as you said in another reply, the objective of this is very focused, so an advisory role should be enough.
Itâs great youâre considering them(SB & OD) as well.
Sense of ownership is a really strong concept and I think we have a lot to explore there.
Moca can control many things in APE DAO, itâs time we start controlling Moca DAO and others jk .
GM⌠I can speak to the level of interest, community-wide, increasing exponentially when there is an ownership connection. The ownership connection between Apecoin and the Mocaverse has drastically altered the level of care for Apecoin within the Mocaverse as well as the direction of the community. Both communities are stronger from this connection. Within the Mocaverse, leaders have emerged from their shells and the space overall improves as communities mature, grow and contribute to the greater space. There is also a level of relevance for the community that comes with this connection. As for Apecoin, the Mocaverse has become the second community fully supporting Apecoin. There is value in onboarding communities and the ownership connection would show conviction from the Apecoin DAO. Also, the intellectual property will be a tool in the belt of the upcoming marketing and comms working group. There will be both intended and unintended benefits for Apecoin by investing in communities and creating an ownership connection.
My thoughts are less per collections and more collections. Also, I believe the ownership connection is strong between BAYC, MAYC, BAKC, & Mocas. Itâs worth considering the price of a single BAYC could buy entry into 20+ top 100 all-time NFT communities. Very interesting concept, metrics could be adjusted to fit the DAOâs will, but absolutely the ownership connection is impactful.
I agree with that observation and while it may be true that engagement levels is not universal (it never is) the aggregate participation has increased dramatically because mocaverse holders had a level of governance ownership over something that they considered useful and valuable.
I will take into account the suggestion to have different NFT collections and perhaps a stronger variety/diversity to play with.
Thank you everyone so far for contributing your thoughts and ideas it is much appreciated!
Hi @MocaChief, thank you for raising these points - As you said, itâs been very fulfilling to see leaders emerging from Mocaverse to share their important perspectives on the potential of Mocaverse and web3 broadly. One of the aspects of web3 that interests me the most is how it can enhance the portability of IP across communities and brands while maintaining its provenance (as well as deriving further cultural significance from its perpetual role in new ideas from anyone who aligns with collectionâs values). Similar points from other great ApeCoin members also keep me thinking about how our communities can best set up the community-run vault and its corresponding sub-DAO for success in reaching cross-building goals - This AIP Idea would be one of the first steps in a process to reach a fleshed out AIP with specifics surrounding the collections and operations. I really enjoy reading everyoneâs comments, thank you all for contributing your important POVs!
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.
The spirit of this proposal is not to hold 10 Cats so Cool Cats work with us. Animoca Brands is already working with Cool Cats from all fronts directly with the project itself, however by owning the Cool Cats, $APE community would also have the license rights to use Cool Cats to build products for any $APE sinks in the future.
This is to open the door for the broader web3 community to think that itâs actually possible for $APE to empower any other web3 projects beyond Yuga Labs products.
This is not the one final answer to spreading $APE influence to beyond Yuga Ecosystem, but itâs the start and also a framework to expand on.
That was my earlier response before I understood the vision better. See my latest response.
I think if you put these exact words you wrote here into the proposal, it will improve it. People arenât telepaths so the clearer you explain the vision instead of only focusing on the first step, the better imho.
Makes sense. But I am pretty sure that owning Cool Cats doesnât convey any use case license rights to the owner of the NFT. That being the case, just owning CC wonât be enough to just up and use the IP without first obtaining licensing rights/permission from the IP holders.
How though? I donât understand how the simple act of just owning the NFT does any of that. I am missing something here. How does ApeCoin owning Cool Cats NFT allow the DAO to do any of the above, let alone convey that it has the ability to do them. Yatâs example of NFT renting etc. is simple and doable because the DAO would own the NFTs in the vault.
This is indeed exciting to see great responses from both For and Against sides of opinion. This debate is exactly why DAO is great with big brains.
Based on the 50+ comments I see above, there are generally more confusion than objection such as what @Sasha pointed out earlier. Confusion such as:
This proposal is suggesting to use $APE to buy and own/hold bags of NFTs, and the NFTs just sit there in the vault
This is meant to sweep the floor, and pump floor price
This is a sub-DAO, and the vault is designed to potentially make profits / losses
Appreciate the feedback so we do understand where the confusion comes from, hence the below clarifications and also the updates we would make to the AIP Draft:
The natural extension of this proposal of using $APE to buy other NFTs representing different culture should be to license the NFT IPs to $APE holders, or whoever is interested (with at least 1 $APE) in utilizing the IP and asking for $APE to support the development of any products utilizing the license
The reason for proposing only 10x NFTs to start with is mainly because there is no intention to use $APE to pump floor price, as opposed to hundreds or thousands of NFTs - 10 NFTs will hardly move the needle
âSub-DAOâ did create confusion, and itâs rather a Sister DAO which asks for grant from ApeCoin DAO to operate according to its agreed mission in the official proposals within the said framework
Points taken and allocation of funds shall be adjusted, and expanding the variety of NFT projects which have significant cultural representation or unique in positioning which would bring an impact to ApeCoin DAO
The full natural progression of this proposal (which require not only us but the ApeCoin community to bring this forward): 1) Purchase > 2) Own > 3) License > 4) Fund > 5) Adopt - The 5-step approach which could be the progression following this proposed by Yat and myself. $APE plays the leading role in the 5-step approach (i.e. 1) Purchase with $APE > 2) ApeCoin DAO owns the NFTs 3) ApeCoin DAO licenses to $APE holders / proposers 4) $APE to fund development of utilizing the IPs 5) Adopt $APE in the product)
Before the SC election, many were still thinking that in order to participate in ApeCoin DAO, they need to own a BAYC (probably majority still thinks the same). This proposal will open the door for non-Yuga projects requesting for $APE grant to build products adopting $APE. $APE as the web3 culture token, empowering the broader ecosystem, fostering the rest of the web3 culturally meaningful projects to participate in the DAO process.
All love to ApeCoin community, and cheers to $APE for powering up the culture.
Summary
Overall I am in agreement to the principal of this AIP. Owning certain high value or historically relevant NFT collections, which have shown historic high value is important.
Sub-Daos are a smart move both from a functional and legal POV.
If we are looking to represent web3 culture I think we should look at all of the top 100 or 150 collections on rarity.tools, which have the rights to their IP.
Mocaverse is an interesting Sub Dao with a large voting ability. However, it would be good if this initiative leads to 50 Community Delegated Daos NOT Sub-daos (with 10-100k ApeCoin delegated) from each collection that has NFTs acquired. They would become mini Mocanaâs.
10KTF created a multi-IP or Multi-Collection offering and this type of reach could be achieved here with ApeCoin.
Personally I have suggested to the BullsontheBlock community to put 10ETH into Apecoin and use the snapshot with over 1.4k signed up to function more like Mocana.eth (Snapshot) I used BOTB as an example, but this could be one of 50 collectible projects.
For disclosure, I hold many of them, though am not part of the NFT company running the collection. FYI I also hold many other NFTs.
Outside of this current AIP scope
I would be great is Apecoin DAO added 1m ApeCoin for communities that can match up to 10k ApeCoin per community (as long as they agree to put in a gnosis wallet and not sell for 12 or 24 months TBC). This could onboard 100 communities and hundreds of thousands of potential holders.
Legal
If they are owned by the sub-DAO does this count as Economic Substance for the ApeCoin Foundation or not as the sub-dao operates independently?
Also are these to be held by the community forever? or will they be sold in the future? I assume the hold period will be over 2 years for legal reasons so are long term investments. If the community can decide to sell we will enforce minimum holding times on the NFTs?
Link to Animoca?
Maybe projects that have NFTs collected and those collections engage in the ApeCoin ecosytem may have the ability to be included in future multi-IP offerings by Animoca?
Well thatâs very clear now because youâve covered every single issue of concern in this discussion. Now itâs up to the community to make the final decision.
And just like that, peace came to these landsâŚuntil you threw in this wrenchâŚ
âThis proposal will open the door for non-Yuga projects requesting for $APE grant to build products adopting $APE.â
How so? The funds granted by the DAO to the sister-DAO are for the purchase of the NFTs to be held in a vault so the community can feel good (hey, donât look at me, thatâs on Yat - he said so) about spending $1M to buy a series of JPEGs.
So, where do grants to build projects that use $APE come into this? Where are the funds coming from? Heck, weâd be hard-pressed to get the DAO to spend on a money printing machine, but weâre totally going to get it to fund $APE projects? Wait here, I ran outta lols. brb.
Exactly 2.5 mins laterâŚ
I mean, Jonah suggested $5M - $20M in an AIP idea to have a publisher do specifically what youâre implying above - but for games. Not that I think his plan - in any form - would succeed, given the timeline, the low ball amounts, experience etc but the point is that this AIP proposal is about buying NFTs to store for adulation (OK fine - we get to own, rent, brag, gloat etc) by the community. I donât see how anything else is going to be derived from it.
Are you then suggesting that by the DAO buying Cool Cats, they in turn can come to the DAO and ask for grants to build projects using $APE? Thatâs the only connection that I see here between the DAO owning NFTs in a vault, and the adoption of $APE by other parties coming to the DAO for grants.
IANAL but I can answer these with relatively high degree of confidence because I stayed at a Holiday Inn once.
Not if the sister-DAO is setup to be independent of the main DAO. Hence the grants. The key here is that, once setup, the DAO should have absolutely nothing to do with the sister DAO in terms of ops, decsion making etc. Itâs specifically why I had indicated in my comments above that itâs a whole slew of things to do in order to make this NFT vault happen - and function - in an independent way.
Yat didnât say anything about selling; only about renting. So, I believe that they would be held in the vault until such time as it becomes necessary to sell.
I donât see the issue there, but my guess is that Animoca would only have control over its own IP. Aside from that, Animoca has nothing to do with the DAO or the sister DAO. So, the sister DAO owning NFTs isnât automagically going to convey any sort of IP rights to Animoca. Nor should it.
Let me clarify my comment. I am not saying Animoca owns the IP nor that anything has been suggested will be offered by Animoca for the NFTs bought in this AIP.
However, for example, 10KTF lets people who use their IP, they donât own the IP used such as 0N1 etc. The same logic would apply to this. If projects that are part of the ApeCoin ecosystem and acquired in this newly formed DAO might be included in future multi IP offerings. Though this is not promised and was just a suggestion, so ignore this point if it leads to confusion.
This proposal is the Step 1 in the 5-step approach I mentioned. This proposal of acquiring NFT allows any follow-on proposals how to adopt the licensing rights of the acquired IPs. Do you feel the need that all grants have to come in 1 proposal? Or it could be a follow-up proposal after this?
With the DAO owning Cool Cats, with the licensing rights, $APE holder can already propose to rent the Cool Cats IP for creating products. For instance, holders can use Mocaverse IP for creating products up to a commercial amount as long as the holder owns the asset.
Once this example is set, it shall theoretically attract Cool Cats / Mocaverse / Pudgy holders to come to ApeCoin and request for grants. $APE naturally becoming the token to empower web3 culture and not only for Yuga projects. By expanding diversity, we shall see wider adoption of $APE in the long term.
Not at all. I mean, getting any community to do anything is usually like herding cats. Trust me, I would know. So, bite sized bits - while wholly inefficient and time-consuming - are probably better in the long term.
Cool. Noted.
Right. Widely ambitious indeed. But, baby steps - I guess.
In general, I am very pro the idea of diversification. Holding 100% of the treasury in $APE is irresponsible, especially at a time when there are really no use cases for the token. The DAO has already lost 42% YTD and the trend will remain down until proven otherwise.
jk 
.