Like all votes abstain is not included and people know when they vote it is not included. So in reality it passed with 76% to 1 DP NOT 50.1% as you state.
I think this is the part that most people aren’t thinking through. The value of the treasury is immaterial if it’s sitting atop a house of cards that’s the governance. And when people lose confidence, they exit - not only the token but also the DAO.
As I type this, $APE is trading at an all-time low of $1.11. I bought it at $1.90 when I first got here in early July. Look how far its fallen - and continues to do so. And on the 17th of this month, 40.6m tokens will unlock, further depressing the value as people and investors alike exit the token. I had once stated that it would be under $1 by Q1/24. It appears that I was a bit too conservative and it’s likely to happen by year end - and probably get even worse during the $BTC halving which is already threatening to bankrupt a lot of investors - especially miners.
The token has no utility - and ApeCoin DAO isn’t doing anything to address that. Sitting on the treasury until the token goes to zero isn’t a good plan.
erm, from your own numbers:
He was already correct as per the actual AIP-239 vote count on Snapshot. Just because abstain votes aren’t adopted, doesn’t mean that they weren’t cast. Which is precisely what he stated below when he said:
If you remove abstain votes, you end up with 349 (269 + 80) votes. So, you want to be looking at the that ratio - if you want, but it would be immaterial. But why remove abstain votes? They are consequential to the vote count even though they do not count towards the adoption.
However, credit where due, milking it until it goes to zero is a great plan for as long as it lasts, and members who are long gone don’t rattle about voting processes or transparency.
Just like IRL politics & treasuries, as enabled by the systems “we” copied wholesale here, with a few extra attack vectors sprinkled on top.
That’s why exactly zero successful organizations - from families to crime gangs to giant corporations employ any system even vaguely resembling this - and the nations or empires that do are able to exist and thrive (for awhile) in spite of it, not because of such a system. Look no further than the 6pm news for evidence.
Broad, vague sprawling wish-list proposals, powers and budgets like this - without true oversight, transparency, or accountability - like the proposal that created the GWG / AA / etc. itself - only hastens the fall.
If it’s somehow different this time, fantastic! History proves the above true 100% of the time so far though, and history always repeats while human nature never varies so let’s account and hedge for these facts instead of rushing to repeat history here.
I totally see what you did there, man.
Abstain was nearly the majority vote… for something so impactful, polarizing and pivotal. Not a good look or inspiring of resounding confidence, no matter how you dance around it.
Also not really on topic. That was a different poorly constructed overly broad proposal with far-reaching impact few voters probably truly grasped - witness the AA fiasco for example, which I appreciate you’re admirably attempting to salvage in some neutered form - so let’s focus on this overly broad far-reaching proposal now.
tbh, I think that’s the crux of this argument. Something as impactful as AIP-239 should neither have been such a close vote to pass nor to have so many people abstain from actually voting. That’s not a good look - at all. I mean, 269/223? That’s a horrid ratio, to be sure.
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
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.
@Amplify Some questions:
What was the cause of this material change (removal)?
We will be deploying a dynamic liquidity provision model as part of our sustainable operations strategy with the underlying motivation to gradually decrease reliance on funding solely from the ApeCoin DAO treasury. Instead, a mechanism would be implemented to generate continuous returns from existing resources.
I see these two were removed? Can we have some insight?
- Gamma Strategies
- Feld, BoringSEC
Derek… Glad you chimed in on this.
As interested as we were to experiment with a liquidity pool initiative aimed at offsetting operations costs, the reality was that much of the community is not quite ready to embark on that journey — so we listened.
All of that being said, we’re thrilled to pass along that without the pool our group has been able to reduce our overall costs by $171,000 and feel good about putting minds at ease. We’re also eternally grateful for the guidance @Feld and Gamma Strategies provided during our conceptualization process and couldn’t recommend their expertise more.
Hope that helps
I see. Thanks for the explanation.
That said, I ran quick scan of Discourse and Discord, and didn’t see any indication of the above. So, for clarity and transparency, could you please point me to this community consensus that indicted that we ‘weren’t quite ready to embark on that journey’? ty
Couldn’t agree more; however, please keep in mind that these edits went live on Discourse today, and all of us have our hands full with a variety of other tasks — even on Saturday nights like we do right now.
Perhaps what would have been better-suited would have been a post on here, ahead of yours explaining why these changes were made. But keep in mind that we do things by the book, and without any separate treatment from other AIP authors; therefor, when requests are made to make changes during Administrative Review, we remain unaware of when those edits become viewable as they go through a separate review process.
I read this proposal and can tell a tonne of thinking, discussion and work has gone into this. Honestly I don’t agree with all of it but that is not really the point. At this stage we should be trying to empower the team members who are motivated and driving progress. I am supportive
This means a great deal to us SD — and appreciate you recognizing these nuances.
There is never going be a one-size-fits all approach when serving the DAO, but we will continue doing everything that we possibly can to push things forward in the most meaningful ways we can.
Indeed. Most people won’t care about stuff like this, so we basically end up with the “whatever” notion, and just move on.
I asked for clarity because this is pretty significant and important as it’s a material change to what was previously proposed in terms of having the DAO create the ability to be financially independent of the Ape Foundation via revenue generating activities. So, what’s the replacement for this “Instead, a mechanism would be implemented to generate continuous returns from existing resources.” now?
Also, you probably missed my question, but I still don’t understand how the GwG arrived at the previously mentioned conclusion where you said: “the reality was that much of the community is not quite ready to embark on that journey — so we listened.”
So, let me ask this another way.
- Where did the GwG get the idea or consensus from?
- Who did the GwG “listen” to in making this decision?
As I mentioned previously, I couldn’t find any evidence of this; in fact, in this incident thread, there’s support for the revenue generating activities for the DAO. And, it has been the primary concern of many in the DAO because, despite the best intentions of the DAO founders to make this an altruistic grants DAO, many don’t support this idea because it drains the treasury and will eventually lead to its complete depletion (assuming the DAO doesn’t die first).
And as there’s no evidence that I can find of this discussion or consensus, this leads me to believe that this was something that you guys discussed in the background, then made a decision. We - the community - had nothing to do with that decision.
Granted, an AIP is the author’s to change and mold as they see fit. In this case, that’s Amplify’s right to do so. However, AIPs like this and which directly affect the DAO - and us - should be as transparent as possible. And if such material changes are made to what was already a well-discussed and important issue, it should come with an explanation to the very people who spent their time and effort to engage in the initiative. Without that, people won’t be keen to engage because the opinion would be that regardless of what is said and discussed, you guys are just going to do what you want to do anyway. So, why even tell us, let alone spawn a discussion?
My opinion as an entrepreneur, business owner and investor is that if the DAO had tangible revenue generating activities, the treasury would be less stressed - and in turn, those who habitually vote down AIPs with large spends are likely to be more amenable to vote based on the merits of the AIP instead of over concerns about treasury bleed. And now, with the $APE token rapidly heading for sub $1, the larger the future grant ask, the more the treasury has to be depleted in order to satisfy the fiat conversion for the grant authors to perform as promised. This is a very - very - serious problem.
Added to that, it doesn’t matter how many layers of complexity are created in a bid to get the DAO self-sustaining, revenue generating, or independent of the Ape Foundation, fact is that the hierarchy isn’t going to change. Look at what’s going on with Binance (and FTX before it, Tether etc). Creating layers (AF / DAO / GwG / AA / LLC etc) doesn’t solve anything, and it’s not as obfuscating as it looks on paper. Layers can be peeled back; and that’s what data forensics - which I routinely do as consulting on the side - are about. At the end of the day, everything traces right back all the way down the line, past the DAO and to the Ape Foundation. There’s no way around it because time is inherently immutable.
The primary thrust of my point is that, this AIP which is requesting an operating budget, is no different from any other grant AIP because the end result is the same. That being, money is going out, and nothing is coming in. And now, with this material change being made, it’s - once again - a one way street in the outflow of the treasury. To that point, why do we then even need a “sustainability study”? Anyone who can balance a check book knows that money going out with nothing coming in, isn’t a sustainable future. There, that’s your sustainability study.
I am saying this again. My opinion is that the primary way to fix this is to roll-up the DAO, do an orderly closure - and start from scratch with a better plan that’s on solid legal footing and structure. And that’s what we should vote on. But my guess is, that will never happen because unless created by GwG, there’s no way that the Ape Foundation allows such an AIP to even pass admin review, let alone to go to vote. We need to do something bold to fix this. Layered Band-Aids aren’t going to cut it.
Regardless, I know that my opinions and views are probably too radical for some people, but someone has to be able to bring up opposing views - even if they aren’t popular. As always, I am available to help wherever I can and as-needed.
With all due respect Derek, I think you’d be shocked to learn how much 1:1 outreach the Governance Stewards conduct on a day-to-day basis with ApeCoinDAO voters and delegations to keep our fingers on the pulse.
Furthermore, it appears you may also be interested to learn that a disproportionate number of community members prefer voicing their thoughts privately; as not everyone has the time, energy or desire to engage in lengthy Discord/Discourse exchanges which often leave people feeling scrutinized or not welcome.
Lastly, and to be very clear, the liquidity pool was a concept written by the Governance Working Group as en experiment to help offset operations costs and provide a proof-of-concept option back to the broader DAO, but if the community as a whole isn’t ready to explore that option through the GWG, perhaps it can be revisited by future Working Groups - or - after our third-party sustainability and compliance report has been created and provided for discussion.
Enjoy your Sunday
Well, that’s very disturbing to me.
So yes - I am very shocked that you guys are - as you say - having back room private discussions with “voters and delegations” on matters that affect the entire DAO community; and then subsequently taking action based on those discussions. All without the community being aware of those discussions and decisions.
If this were an AIP put up by community members, that’s a different thing because there’s nothing wrong with consulting with others to gauge and solicit their opinion. I did that too with all of my AIPs before and after they went up.
That you are highlighting the fact that some people “prefer voicing their thoughts privately; as not everyone has the time, energy or desire to engage in lengthy Discord/Discourse exchanges which often leave people feeling scrutinized or not welcome” is alarming, to say the least; because what you’re suggesting is that, privacy (wait! I thought Web3 and blockchain were all about transparency!) aside, people opting to talk to you guys directly, are likely to be more influential in decision making than us who, on a daily basis, engage publicly and especially on material matters that affect and shape the DAO.
Further, what you’re insinuating here is that this material change to a DAO focused AIP regarding an income generating initiative was serious enough that you guys decided to talk among yourselves - and privately with voters and delegates - then subsequently removed it. And that was done with nary an explanation to the very people - that being us - in the community who actively engaged publicly about it.
That’s absolutely not a good look. And that, right there, is just the latest example of why we have low engagement here in the DAO because, like voting, once people in a community feel like they have no power, and that nothing they do or say matters, what’s the incentive for engagement?
That wasn’t an experiment. For it to be that, it would have had to be implemented and the results would then determine the future of the initiative.
The community had nothing to do with this. As I’ve stated previously, there’s nothing - absolutely nothing - here on Discourse and on Discord - that supports this notion that “community as a whole isn’t ready to explore that option”.
Yes - I get that the can has now been kicked down the road, but that’s a completely different take than saying the “community helped the GwG make this decision” when in fact it didn’t. And talking to delegates who may or may not have even had discussions with their own delegators, then making decisions based on those discussions, isn’t exactly conducive to fairness, let alone openness.
It’s interesting to note that while you guys are making and floating all these ideas and decisions, thus far, the GwG doesn’t seem to be in the least bit interested in taking up an initiative that actually matters and is detrimental to the future and survival of the DAO: The voting system. I withdrew my voting reform AIP-318 because, aside from it having no chance of passing, I was later convinced that only the Ape Foundation and to some extent the GwG, could make a sweeping change to it.
I realize that, like most, I’m just spinning my wheels, and that nothing that I say or do will make a difference. And so, I will just step aside from discussions like this and go back into observer mode.
Lots of detail to digest here, well done.
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
After review, this Topic submitted by @Amplify is ready for vote under AIP-317. The proposal will be posted on Snapshot at the next weekly release date and time, which is every Thursday at 9PM EST.
The AIP implementation is administered by the Ape Foundation. Implementation may be immaterially or materially altered to optimise for security, usability, to protect APE holders, and otherwise to effect the intent of the AIP. Any material deviations from an AIP, as initially approved, will be disclosed to the APE holder community.
This proposal is live for Snapshot vote at Snapshot. The voting period closes next Wednesday at 9PM EST.
The AIP implementation is administered by the Ape Foundation. Implementation may be immaterially or materially altered to optimize for security, usability, to protect APE holders, and otherwise to effect the intent of the AIP. Any material deviations from an AIP, as initially approved, will be disclosed to the APE holder community.