AIP-317: ApeCoin DAO Governance and Operations Budget

This is really great, and has much needed details and transparency. Well done, chaps! :fist_left:

I do have some thoughts for further discussion.

While this looks good on paper, I think you guys will find that it’s not that simple. Corps spend millions a year on specific R&D into their IP, how to market, utilize and grow it etc. Which brings me to this:

  1. The IP in question here, are the Yuga Labs & Animoca Brand NFTs.
  2. The $APE token is crypto currency and not regarded as IP.

Both of the IP owners are already funding various initiatives related to their IP. As such, I don’t believe that this sort of activity is in the best interests of the ApeCoin DAO.

So, my question is, what was the intrinsic goal here? No amount of studies or consultations are going to yield any new tangible results based on pre-existing engagement metrics.

And why would the DAO engage in expenses related to NFTs and IPs?

I believe - and this is free advice - that the DAO needs to focus on one thing and one thing only:

Engaging in activities that sustain and grow the DOA, and in turn, the $APE token.

For one thing, no matter the initiatives or best intentions, no AIP is going to get past the voting process. As has been shown time and time again, even the best ones (in the interests of the DAO) fail to pass. There is absolutely no getting around that.

So, what happens when all this money goes into these initiatives, put up for vote - and subsequently fail? Then what? In fact, this paradox is inherent in game sales. A publisher can put out as many games as they like, but the reality is that very few of them will actually recoup costs, let alone turn a profit. It’s also the F2P game model whereby 1 person pays for the 1m who aren’t. That’s our current voting system. You could throw 10 reasonable AIPs at the voting mechanism, and it’s likely that only 1, maybe 2, will pass. That’s a lot of time, effort, and energy wasted. That’s why we’'re not seeing that many AIPs - at least not ones that are detrimental to the growth of the DAO.

IMO, this is a waste of time, effort, and funds.

A better use of those funds would be in creating - outside of the voting process - a fixed yearly budget, voted on once, and used for funding tangible initiatives which the working groups decide on.

e.g. Say the WG gets a $2M a year budget to “promote the adoption of ApeCoin & $APE”. External parties, e.g. game devs, marketers, builders etc. are engaged and incentivised to build for $APE. The result is that you get a flood of apps, initiatives etc that adopt $APE. And they don’t have to be great, they only have to be good enough to be engaging. At the end of the day, it’s just marketing.

In fact, above is what AIP-209 got $480K to do, even though the way it’s gated all but guarantees that it’s going to run out of those funds before it gets a single [credible] builder to build through it.

Both Simon and Jonah came up with similar ideas in their $20M AIP publishing plans which I personally believe are too ambitious and under-funded to make any real impact. Aside from that, it’s what I have been saying for as long as I have been here.

Which brings me to the Metaverse Working Group. I recently withdrew my candidacy for various reasons. I mention MWG here because it’s relevant.

While some people assumed that the MWG was setup so that we could go “build all the things”, that’s not what AIP-245 says.

This is the abstract by @badteeth

AIP-245_01

Look familiar? It should because it’s basically within the realms of what’s now being rolled into the GWG ops and budget.

But wait! There’s more.

See that? Badteeth already did all this work. It’s now August, and not only is the AA not a thing, but literally nothing related to AIP-245 has been done as of yet.

So, my conclusion is that instead of wasting time, energy and resources on a $25K expense that’s not going to yield any tangible results, let alone the fact that it already overlaps with MWG, that money and task should be removed because it’s just a waste. And if the DAO really wants to throw $25K into a fire pit, donate it to my charity of choice, and I’ll write a 100K word essay on why it’s a terrible idea. I’ll even include pictures and charts.

Similarly, the $30K allocated to this should go to the legal funds covered by the “Contingency” pool because we’re going to need it. When the legal (SEC/CFTC) fight comes to this DAO - and it’s not a matter of if, but of when - we’re not going to have time to be writing up AIPs for a legal defense fund. Or are we?

Also, since the AA is responsible for the election of the three MWG stewards, shouldn’t that funding be part of the AA budget? AIP-245 says:

This AIP serves as an initial framework to establish this Working Group. The three elected Stewards will propose an initial budget 1-3 weeks after being onboarded.”

I have no clue what that budget would entail, besides the monthly salaries of the stewards, but shouldn’t some type of budget be allocated here under AA so as to speed things up and avoid the time wasted by - yet another - AIP?

What’s the purpose of this? What is it going to achieve? What problem or deficiency it is addressing?

Aside from the fact that, just for an iOS or Android app, whatever it is this app is supposed to do, will not yield the expected results. If we need a mobile app, it needs to be specifically done via an AIP which has details on what’s needed, what it does etc. Putting a $45K line item in a budget - with no clear guidance - is a waste of money. And that $45K is likely to be sitting there for months on end - unspent.

Similarly, if it needs to be in here in order to save the time and effort - and risk of failing in a vote - then, I can safely say that $45K is wholly inadequate. Think bigger. $100K minimum, bigger.

  1. Why do we need this?
  2. Why is it separate?
  3. What’s the money to be spent on?
  4. Why can’t it just be an initiative within the AA framework?

I think this entire section and its $118K budget is a waste of money.

What’s this for and why is it needed when we already have the AA?

Also, OKR7 refers to it as “Global Community Committee”; so one of those needs to be changed to match.

  1. Why do we need this?
  2. Why is it separate?
  3. What’s the money to be spent on?
  4. Why can’t it just be an initiative within the AA framework?
8 Likes