AIP-318: APECOIN DAO Voting Reforms

I was unable to confirm this because there are currently no “active” votes to view on Snapshot or on the website.

However, your screen shot above, which prompted me to mention last night that I would take a look at the website today, shows abstain votes during an “active” voting session.

As @br00no said, they probably forgot to update the website when they made the same update to Snapshot. This is a big discussion about this very same abstain issue in this topic which I posted earlier.

Hey @Lost.Admin, can you chime in on this please. ty.

Indeed.

When I used the word “arbitrary” to describe the action as was taken, my post got flagged - and hidden, until I changed it to remove that word. Apparently it wasn’t an arbitrary decision by the foundation, but rather a consensus within the foundation as depicted here in Amplify’s post. The point of the use of the word “arbitrary” was to say that the action taken was, as you stated, “without formal community input or a vote” from what was depicted in AIP-200.

Amplify confirmed this here:

Basically, it appears that the foundation - at its discretion - can make changes to an AIP that has already passed by voting. This presents a concern because if this AIP idea goes to vote as-is, and it passes, what’s to prevent the foundation from once again changing it from what was intended in the voting? Hopefully @amplify.Admin can chime in here and provide some clarity and transparency.

Hello @SmartAPE,

Yes, all AIPs have this language attached to them: “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.”

As the author of AIP-200, I can confidently say that the Abstain option wasn’t accurately implemented. So as both a Governance Steward and the author, it was a fairly simple decision to make the necessary adjustments needed to implement the AIP properly. :slight_smile:

I hope this helps.

-Amplify

4 Likes

Hiya @amplify.Admin

That’s a solid and perfectly reasonable explanation. And I understand fully. Thanks for clearing that up.

ps. Please look into having the website display of Abstain votes mirror the methodology in Snapshot so as to avoid future confusion and uncertainty. ty.

2 Likes

Thanks.

As a DAO member and voter In Favor of that AIP, I disagree with this characterization and take serious umbrage that action was taken without formal community feedback and without formal announcement. It sets a bad precedence, and that vague wording in the clause basically allows for almost any action to be taken to materially alter a voted-for and implemented AIP.

Just for the record, and for my part I’ll leave it at that since further discussion about it here would detract from the main focus, sprit and purpose of this AIP.

PS - why doesn’t SC and the admins implement shielded voting, since there was never even a discussion or vote to adopt our current voting system or pass / fail threshold, or to have visible votes totals and allow changing of votes during an active voting period, and visible votes during an active vote definitely do represent a real and easily exploited threat to our elections?

That is crucial to the main point of this thread, IMO, so it’s a general question not directed at you specifically @Amplify, though I’d be happy to read your thoughts on it.

1 Like

And therein lies the rub. It’s the same umbrella under which the Ape Foundation can request that an author modify the material aspects of their AIP or they won’t send it to vote. To wit: The batte over AIP-277.

They can do this - and more. And people voted for it. Here we are.

Very nice content! Yesss

This is complex and while I am supportive of the vision of making voting fairer I disagree with the concept as is because it does not account for its relative commitment ie it’s stake. One person one vote in the DAOs current stake can be gamed far easier because of the absolute numbers for the time being and the commitment or “what’s at stake” is so small it doesn’t matter.

What I would propose that we could consider is the principal of having a stake which means that instead of removing voting power we can enhance voting power with caps for committed community members because they have demonstrated and worked is earned their stake.

For instance a member who has been active for a year might get +X token voting power or a multiplier of 1.1 or 1.2x as a hypothetical example (probably a cap may be needed) It creates a dynamic that you can earn your voting power rather than just have anyone join at a cost of a few dollars and vote the same as someone who might have invested significantly. This creates in my view a better sense of shared equity amongst all DAO members as you either buy or work your way into the DAO in a sense.

7 Likes

Hi @yatsiu wb!

Did you mean to say “current state”?

Also, I don’t quite understand what you mean when you say it can be gamed far easier. I outlined ways to protect the votes from being gamed. Perhaps you saw something that I missed? If so, can you provide an example?

Also, I don’t think a person’s token stake in the DAO should have any relevance to their vote. Doing that isn’t different from how it is now whereby it creates an unfair caste system.

An election isn’t free, fair and equal when you introduce a caste system to it. It’s precisely why corp boards aren’t this way, and even a board’s voting system depends on various merits.

In the case of the DAO, someone who has been on Discourse since the beginning could have more voting power than someone who came in a month ago. Those metrics are easy to get from Discourse because it’s also used in the trust level system. Maybe something like that? And doing it that way, probably removes vote delegation from the equation.

I agree with this because it ties into my trust level idea above. But anything to do with tokens needs to be removed from the equation. And of course that creates a problem for voters who weren’t active on Discourse but who have tokens. Thing is, having tokens is a financial stake, not a vested stake in the community whereby some of us are very active participants. How would we address that? Maybe go by the creation date of the wallet instead of the value?

2 Likes

This is not the correct term.

A caste system is a class structure that is determined by birth. Loosely, it means that in some societies, the opportunities you have access to depend on the family you happened to be born into. The phrase caste system has been around since the 1840s, but we’ve been using caste since the 1500s.

Choosing to buy APE is not determined by your status at birth.
Caste can’t be changed even if you make financial gain but APE is not linked to the family you are born in.

FYI
https://www.soas.ac.uk/courseunits/race-and-caste

Also @SmartAPE a vested stake or vested interest is by definition exactly what @yatsiu said and NOT what you said.

A vested interest refers to an individual’s own stake in an investment or project, especially where a financial gain or loss is possible . In financial parlance, a vested interest often refers to the ability to rightfully claim assets that have been contributed or set aside for later use.

What Is a Vested Interest in Financial Parlance?.

The comments from @yatsiu are a middle ground view to account for those that are active in the DAO.

Again this is a Decentralised Organisation and like an enterprise your level of relative commitment (it’s stake) is fundamental on how voting power should be given.

Although not the same it mirrors to some degree how sweat equity gives more say to certain key employees in start ups, in terms of more equity control (over time if they gain equity and other shareholders don’t match more funds, hence get diluted) vs those who are purely financial investors in a company.

3 Likes

You’re wrong. lol

The definition of a caste takes on various meanings depending on usage. Obviously I didn’t use it in this case to signify anything to do with birth right. lol

e.g.

Caste is the system of dividing people in a society into different social classes

Caste is defined primarily by social honor attained through personal lifestyle

Caste system is a form of social stratification which involves a system of hierarchically ranked, closed endogamous strata, the membership of which is ascribed and between which contact is restricted and mobility theoretically impossible.”

There are entire sociological studies on this - most of which talk about a caste based heirarchy.

Google is your friend; but don’t just run there and grab the first definition you see on page 1. Which is precisely what you just did. lol

So, my use of the term above is well in line with what happens when you use a system of heirarchy - in this case. To wit : “Doing that isn’t different from how it is now whereby it creates an unfair caste system.”

In this case, the value of a token in voting creates a caste system whereby a whale with 100 $APE is up the social ladder than someone with 1 $APE. Heck, it’s specifically how society came up with the term “whale”.

Wrong. Again. Nothing to do with birth right.lol

I said:

In the case of the DAO, someone who has been on Discourse since the beginning could have more voting power than someone who came in a month ago. Those metrics are easy to get from Discourse because it’s also used in the trust level system. Maybe something like that? And doing it that way, probably removes vote delegation from the equation.”

Yat said:

For instance a member who has been active for a year might get +X token voting power or a multiplier of 1.1 or 1.2x as a hypothetical example (probably a cap may be needed) It creates a dynamic that you can earn your voting power rather than just have anyone join at a cost of a few dollars and vote the same as someone who might have invested significantly. This creates in my view a better sense of shared equity amongst all DAO members as you either buy or work your way into the DAO in a sense.”

Literally nothing to do with birth right. lol. It’s about using an APE’s stake, in this case token or engagement, to determine the power of their vote.

ps.

We can agree to disagree again. You link is focused about Caste Based Discrimination in the US related to this.

WHEREAS , the practices of the caste system in the workplace, in hiring, housing, healthcare, business ownership, and other applications is an extension of the practice of discrimination against Africans, South Asians, Middle Easterners, Middle Easterners, women and others both in their home countries as well as other countries throughout the diaspora including the U.S., in our day-to-day lives.

Note your own example has a focus on nationality, ethnicity and gender. All are things which you are born with.

Your second link is also about US racial discrimination which is a US specific issue.

The ApeCoin DAO has members all around the world, from many countries and many ethnicities and genders. All working to a common goal.

Thank you for sharing links about the history of the country of your residence.

2 Likes

erm, no? Why? Because you’re implying that I can’t use the word “caste” because you think birth right has any place in my missive about voting. It doesn’t. And you CANNOT claim to know what was in my head when I came up with that definition, instead of say, “discrimination” or some other term to express a heirarchy.

I demonstrated that “caste” can be used in various settings. And then, you proved my point by excerpting the same article which I posted and which clearly demonstrates what I stated - that it’s not just about birth right. lol

Moving on.

ps. Scroll up and read the Politico one too.

A few comments and thoughts around this

I disagree, primarily because you are not “born” into apecoin and in a similar sense while it bears some similarities to digital citizenship in my view apecoin as a foundation is more akin to an institution which means I’m applying a blend of a corporate model that embeds with it capitalist ideals.

In that sense a stake in capitalism represents both earned (labour) and owned (capital) and I believe we need to strike a balance between the two for it to be successful for the DAO hence my proposal to have a kind of “earned” structure to complement the capital structure not its wholesale elimination which is what you are suggestion. In removing any reason to have a meaningful capital incentive (i.e. a holding of APE in this case) doing you are removing the capitalist incentive which I believe is essential for the DAO to be sustainable.

In terms of the issue of voting, unless we have a much larger number of apecoin holders who are voting which currently still only sits somewhere in the low thousands sometimes hundreds, a ticket system makes it harder to prevent vote buying and in its current state becomes quite easy to manipulate. At least with the current delegation system one can easily ascertain the strength of the voting element and counter that in the open, vs. in the dark where transparency is not as clear when one can introduce 1000 new apecoin voters who nobody may have seen before each holding 1-10 ape. Once we get to a point were apecoin has, eg. 1 million it becomes much much harder to corrupt the system.

But ultimately my main issue is that it removes the Capital incentive which I think is necessary for the apecoin DAO to succeed. This is of course a matter of opinion but if you do the math and add up the total number of apecoin holders today and let them vote with a maximum power of either 1 or 10 ape (or even 100 ape) you would lose the incentive to hold a stake in apecoin that was meaningful other than to extract from its treasury which I think is a misaligned incentive and would create a disproportionate incentive to allow for a kind of sybil attack (I don’t mean sybil attacks in purely computational form but one that would create incentives to subvert the reputational system that maintains the governance of the apecoin DAO primarily because the DAO is not mature enough yet given its size).

Pure token holdings isn’t optimal either but provides a simple mechanism to provide a public defense that is auditable with rules that are at least simple to understand that are not subject to the same sybil attacks because it requires substantial cost to do so, for the time being.

I believe the mechanism that I introduced maintains the element of both labour and capital, you need both and the ratios can be determined to create the right incentives for it to be sustainable in my view.

4 Likes

to be fair to @bigbull when you said caste system most people would think of the hindu caste system, I certainly read it that way.

That said my response to this should be read less about caste as social order but about how you obtain a stake/reputation in apecoin. In a national voting system it is a birthright, in the case of a dao you are not born into it so how do you “earn” your right to have a say in apecoin and what should that proportion be?

Even as a birth right you may only vote once you reach a certain age, in many countries it is 18 years of age which can be read as an investment in the stake of the country because that person is now “ready” to vote.

3 Likes

For instance a member who has been active for a year might get +X token voting power or a multiplier of 1.1 or 1.2x as a hypothetical example (probably a cap may be needed) It creates a dynamic that you can earn your voting power rather than just have anyone join at a cost of a few dollars and vote the same as someone who might have invested significantly. This creates in my view a better sense of shared equity amongst all DAO members as you either buy or work your way into the DAO in a sense.

A game called Crypto Unicorns on the polygon chain has actually implemented this. They have regular leaderboards, which gives you a wallet bound NFT at the end of the season. This NFT determines the staking multiplier which for example can be 0.05x. But as you collect more and more of them, it slowly starts adding up. However one difference is that this multiplier is applied to the staking reward which in return affects voting power. Voting power is derived as a function of time locked like other systems, but this acts as a bonus.

The system has been active for over 6 months now and it seems to be quite good. People try to participate maximally to collect all the NFTs. I wonder if something like that could also be applied to APE staking.

2 Likes

it is certainly an interesting idea to give people higher voting power if they stake their apecoin because it demonstrates commitment although that might mean the commitment needs to be somehow time demonstrated too because you can just as easily unstake

3 Likes

Why is a financial stake to you not a vested stake?

While it is certainly true that someone can be a financial investor and is not as active as some other members their contribution of capital is of value to the community and by definition makes them vested in the interest and potential success of that community, especially if it is a capitalist one.

4 Likes

It’s the classic “ve” model. Though these days that model seems to be falling out of favor because people don’t like feeling “trapped”. In still has its merits though, and combined with bonus multipliers it makes for a unique model.

The only problem is figuring out how exactly it applies to our DAO. How do we reward people multipliers? Time is pretty vague and will eventually cause sybil issues, so it still has to be tied to token amounts or proper proof of personhood. The latter will drive away a large number of people. Maybe it could be tied to active/past contributor roles. This might incentivize even whales to work for the DAO because the multiplier will be a leverage on their stake.

1 Like

Staking, at least via the only official method which is apestake, which is also the only staking protocol that results in staked tokens counting for voting, isn’t legally available to people in the US or Canada which is where the vast majority of DAO members reside.

And the only “value” to the community staking provides is to not depress the token price because staked tokens aren’t dumped into the market, which brings us to another wink-nudge method of token price propping-up and token price pumping is a big no-no for the DAO to be encouraging.

This is an assumption not substantiated by facts.

1 Like