Don’t ever apologize for seeking clarity!! 
But yes, please keep in mind the proposal is still being edited, so similar to what I said to SSP, it wouldn’t really add any clarity to answer them all. Just to say that we resonate with a lot of your feedback and we think you’ll find that the upcoming changes directly reflect all of that feedback. 
-Amplify
Thanks.
Look forward to the new version.
In the meantime, a 2-minute video:
this value of $6,500 is really small, when we should be well above that as you mentioned, that worries me a lot too.
Hi @Amplify,
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.
We look forward to hearing from you.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
Hi @Amplify,
Thank you for your ideas [and the ApeCoin DAO community for the insightful discussions]. A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft using the appropriate template. In accordance with DAO-approved guidelines, if the author doesn’t respond within 30 days, the proposal will be automatically transferred to the Withdrawn category, and the author can re-submit the idea. Once the AIP is Drafted and meets all DAO-approved guidelines, it will be published on Snapshot for the official live voting phase at: Snapshot.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments. @Amplify please see your messages for the next steps.
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
@Amplify has completed editing their AIP Idea to be their AIP Draft.
Edits have been made to this Topic, by the author’s request.
You can click the Pencil icon at the top of the post to see these edits.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.
Kind Regards,
Just thinking out loud here, I have a few thoughts and questions:
Surprised to see that the elections of Stewards for the approved Working Groups was not included in this AIP:
Look forward to your answers to my questions above.
SSP🤙🏽
ApeComms
ApeCoinRadio
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
We have no further questions for @Amplify . This AIP is now under Administrative Review.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.
Kind Regards,
Any chance of getting the authors to respond to the questions above before we move on? 
Yes! I can share some data we discovered when going through this process.
First, they are anonymous, and there is no KYC required for managing members. It’s a non-profit, so no tax obligations, it has limited liability, the ability to contract with 3rd parties, no local citizenship/DAO manager requirements, and is a very forward thinking jurisdiction with regards to DAOs and on-chain governance.
I think it makes sense, but I cannot offer any recommendations tbh.
This is definitely something they can explore. Once we deploy the APE/WETH LP strategy with Gamma it acts as a vault in which anyone can add liquidity to and benefit from the auto rebalancing mechanism. The only active management required from there is withdrawing any fee revenue or as-needed Ops Funds.
We are still finalizing the elections process for Marketing and Communications and Metaverse Working Groups, but the first step would be to get those Stewards elected so they can author a budget with this work included.
-Amplify
Thanks for these answers.
Can I get an ETA on the answers for the second set of questions?
Sorry @ssp1111, but we’re still finalizing all the details for the elections.
I get that, thanks
That said, what is the general timeline in your mind for these approved Working Group elections? Are you guys thinking:
1 - Same time as SC and GovWG elections
2 - Before the SC and GovWG elections
3 - After the SC and GovWG elections
(please reply with a number 
)
SSP🤙🏽
Todd… Appreciate you chiming in on this.
Full bode of confidence from me after speaking with both Feld and Gamma. Goal here is sustainability and no one has done it better than BoringSEC.
We’re here to try and replicate some of that success and subsidize operations costs for the DAO. These are the first steps toward providing a much broader proof-of-concept to the community for feedback on other potential strategies.
If you’re curious, would love to send over some APE/WETH backtesting from Gamma that may help paint a clearer picture on what can be accomplished with this type of protocol 
AC
If I jump back in and get elected as one of the MWG stewards, it’s precisely what I would do.
With change must come mentorship — that is for sure Sword. And the Governance team takes our duties guiding this ship with the upmost of seriousness, so one of the aspects of this proposal that we are most excited about is the professional service provider and advisory team we’re putting into place to lead our every step. Also, in terms of risk mitigation, important to recognize that over 30% of this budget is being put aside into the liquidity pool, which if effective, will be rolled into our next funding window LP in-full, or if deemed inefficient ahead of that time, easily reallocated to the same operations and initiative costs but paid up-front as opposed to by yield, with any monies left over still being rolled into our next budget.
AC
This is very thorough and well explained.
I have faith in the GWG stewards, although at times I may have shown reservations.
I’d ask people to reframe from abusive language or casting insinuations of wrong doing - it goes against our community guidelines re personal attacks.
LFG.
Could you please answer the questions I had asked during the draft phase that are still relevant after your edit? I also have some other questions.
Appreciate all the work you’ve put into this and I look forward to your reply!
