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.
Don’t we have an inherent interest in keeping the price stable though? As a DAO our entire treasury is denominated in APE. Do we have nothing to lose if it goes to 0.0001? We can’t fund anything or run anything. I feel like, as a DAO, we have an inherent interest in keeping the price stable. Maybe even convert some of the APE at some point when the markets are better to ETH so it remains more stable and we can do better long term planning. As it stands, we can’t guarantee that we will be able to payout a multi milestone AIP over many years because we can’t guarantee our treasury value.
To put another way, has any effective enterprise, or any successful organization not cared about the main means through which they can incentivize people to accomplish goals? Why would we not care about our carrot rotting? We want to have a juicy carrot, that ideally grows so that we can dangle it in front of more and more people to chase after our goals, whatever that might be. Letting that carrot rot means we have nothing - we’re just a bunch of people who can just talk to each other but can’t get any serious people onboard to do things for us.
Are not the main alternatives a similar legal status. The difference is they are by third party providers (probably not US based) and have no relation to the ApeCoin Foundation. After all anyone can offer staking on any token. Individuals can also just connect to the contract directly as well.
The third party provider choose to geo-fence the Ape Staking website in jurisdictions where offering staking could have regulatory concerns. (Edited after correction from @BoredApeG)
Finally, there are AIPs in progress now to include other staking platforms tokens to your voting total.
FYI a Special Council member @BoredApeG is a co-author on these AIPs.
FYI. I created AIP-295 which is in Administrative Review, which is more about fixing some errors in the current Snapshot which doesn’t reflect accurately the Voting Process listed on the official ApeCoin Dao Governance page.
That said while AIP-295 is about rectifying current issues, I think a future AIP can be worked on once this is corrected, thinking of the algorithm needed to consider both financial capital and community capital contributions in the voting system.
Though I wasn’t using “caste” in a birth right fashion, I specifically used it to illustrate how an Ape with $APE x1 (A) is lesser than an Ape with $APE x 1000 (B)
So, if Ape-B has more voting power than Ape-A, that’s how an unfair caste (in this case the levels of each Ape’s bag holding/standing) system is created whereby the more money you have the louder your voice.
In some institutions, you have similar weighted systems of preference. e.g. if you went to an Ivy League school, your children have a better chance of getting in as well, due to your legacy standing.
I do get what you’re saying, and your idea (above) of using a weighted scheme instead of the value of the Ape’s bags, is a much better and equitable compromise - I think.
OK - I understand now where you’re going with this. And I agree.
Yes - but the current system also promotes vote buying.
Also, “open voting” isn’t any more secure against vote buying than “closed voting”. It’s why voting in every RL instance is a closed system. Just because it’s Web3 doesn’t mean that it has to be different - especially if it doesn’t make it any better.
Plus, even with open voting, you can still see the results - then continue with the voting buying anyway.
And a ticket based voting system is a lot more secure than the alternative.
As to the issue of this: “is not as clear when one can introduce 1000 new apecoin voters who nobody may have seen before each holding 1-10 ape.” - it’s precisely why I suggested using the wallet creation time as a gated factor in combination with having a certain amount of $APE. ergo:
ticket system
age of voter wallet
value of voter wallet
Yes - I see what you mean. But then you’re alluding to the fact that Apes holding onto their bags is an incentive for them to vote. How so?
Your anecdote also appears to imply that unless an Ape holds a large bag, they have no incentive to vote. I can dispute this with math - because I’ve already run the stats on this. There are - last I checked - only a max of 17 whales (you being one of them iirc) in every election since the beginning of this DAO. That implies that there are more regular voters than there are whales.
That said, you appear to also be suggesting that the value of an Ape’s bags - which is then used to influence the voting - is a bigger incentive than the survival and prosperity of the DAO. If that’s the case, what then are we doing here? e.g. In RL, large money donors usually give funding to the campaigns of the delegates and lobbyists who match their values. That money is used to campaign to/for the voters. Others do it out of sheer altruism, and it’s why corps donate to various political parties without favoritism. In short, the money doesn’t blatantly go towards effecting the elections. And yes - shockingly - vote buying also happens in this case. There’s no way around that.
Agreed. However, I believe that a combination of what I posted above yields a better, more secure, and more equitable result overall. And it’s way better than what we have now.
Indeed. We can work on ways to tweak it so that we have something that works and which is equitable to both the whale bag holders and the common Ape who doesn’t have the influence in the elections that a whale does.
Right. But when you apply an unbalanced weight it then becomes inequitable. As a fair & equitable system, a guy joining ApeCoin today and only has $APE x 10, shouldn’t feel lower class/caste in which his vote doesn’t count because he’s not holding a large bag like the whale.
I get that you think the whales need to be rewarded for holding their $APE, but clearly that’s not working - at all - given the rapidly declining value of the token. And if you look at the metrics, it’s not just the falling value, it’s also the falling holdings (wallets exiting $APE).
Oh, it is a vested financial stake in the $APE token, but not in the community proper. That’s the point that I was making there. e.g. I am an investor in $TSLA and have been since day one; but I don’t like Musk, who I have known from back in the day when we were all just nobodys just sh*tposting online.
Agreed. However, the interest in this regard would be more in the value of $APE than in the community built around it. There’s a big difference between capitalism and altruism, as I am sure that you’re aware. Here in the DAO, I believe the goal and impetus is crystal clear as the founders intended it to be:
“APE is a token made to support what’s next, controlled and built on by the community. It will serve as a decentralized protocol layer for community-led initiatives that drive culture forward into the metaverse.” … The goal of the APE Foundation is to steward the growth and development of the APE ecosystem in a fair and inclusive way. It utilizes the Ecosystem Fund, which is controlled by a multisig wallet, to pay its expenses as directed by the ApeCoin DAO and provides an infrastructure for ApeCoin holders to collaborate through open and permissionless governance processes."
So, is the purpose of the DAO to do the above or to focus on the value of the $APE token? Because clearly nothing is working as the token continues its downward slide to sub-zero. Certainly the value of the $APE token is detrimental to the prosperity of the DAO. But as of now, the DAO isn’t doing anything substantial towards building things that would make people want to hold $APE. Heck, not even Yuga Labs has been able to crack the code for that, but that’s probably because cash grab games are never - ever - going to yield tangible results.
My point being, by building a secure, inclusive, equitable, robust voting system, we are able to build the confidence in the DAO community and to attract those who value such things. Not everyone does what they do for money. Some of us engage in activities that we care about. e.g. I run two gamedev studios, but in the last month since I’ve been here, and given the amount of time that I have devoted to this community, you’d think that I was some unemployed dude sitting in a Starbucks somewhere.
And to add to that, if I thought the voting system was all the things I just said above, I wouldn’t be trying to change it. And shockingly, I am not alone in this exercise because for sometime now, many - here and elsewhere - have voiced their gripes about the voting system. Yet, nobody bothered to put up an AIP to change it. Guess why that is.
The DAO is facing major headwinds and if it is to grow we must implement a voting system that will encourage people to engage in the community and in turn that will obviously affect the value of the $APE token.
And we need to build things. We’re never going to succeed in doing that if we don’t put in a robust system that can’t be gamed or manipulated because some people care more about the value of their bags - today - than in the prosperity of the DAO.
To clarify though, the third party provider made the decision re: geofencing. It was not the Ape Foundation itself that did. It’s unfortunate but I think we can understand their considerations for doing so.
Starting December 5, $APE holders had the option to pre-deposit funds in preparation for rewards accrual to begin on December 12. With that period now over, rewards for staked $APE are now live and accruing, and all ApeCoin or BAYC NFT holders can join in on staking. Unfortunately, due to regulatory concerns, ApeStake is not available to residents of the United States, Canada, North Korea, and more (see the full list here)
Yup. I believe I mentioned this in one of my replies above.
Those are all valid concerns which I too shared (in my companion thread that precedes this AIP) before deciding to put up the AIP and kick the tires so to speak.
If you can think of anything else that I may have missed and which you think can work, please let me know. Right now, I believe that a combination of my ideas and Yat’s weighted scheme would work quite well once we come up with equitable and sensible parameters.
Thanks for that, fam. We all want to see the DAO prosper; and so, we have to start somewhere.
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.
@SmartAPE has requested to extend the community discussion period for this AIP idea. This topic will automatically close a further 8 days from now. We encourage the community to continue to engage in thoughtful discussions through constructive criticism, honest feedback, and helpful suggestions.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.
Your topic will be moving to the AIP Draft phase in 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.
@SmartAPE has requested to extend the community discussion period for this AIP idea. This topic will automatically close a further 7 days from now. We encourage the community to continue to engage in thoughtful discussions through constructive criticism, honest feedback, and helpful suggestions.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.
I want to mention that I have added an item related to the ability to change votes after they have already been cast. That goes away too.
Also, I am still not convinced that allowing vote counts based on the number of $APE tokens held is a good thing. Even if we capped it at, say, 500 $APE regardless of how many are held, that still won’t change anything because the whales would still be the majority. And that’s precisely what we’re trying to get away from.
@bigbull has AIP-295 which is [hopefully] about to pass. That one requires min 1 $APE to vote in Snapshot. If it passes, then it solves one item in my idea.
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.
I appreciate the thoughtful discussion around voting reform and the work @SmartAPE did to put this idea together.
My sense after spending nearly a year deep in the machinations of the DAO is that voting reform is of the utmost importance to the future of all we’re trying to accomplish here.
We’re in a situation where 5 wallets control > 50% of the voting power (based on last weeks voting AIP-218, AIP-250, AIP-295) which alone leaves us with an incredibly fragile voting system. Combine that with the ability to literally buy AIP approvals by purchasing tokens it’s a recipe for disaster.
I understand @SmartAPE’s push towards 1 person = 1 vote as it feels the most democratic and I also believe @yatsiu’s point around the capitalist incentives for larger holders is important. As with most things, it feels like the best solution is somewhere in the middle. Finding the balance between 1 person = 1 vote and 1 token = 1 vote is the ongoing challenge.
As we continue to sort thought the voting system mechanics we should do all we can to craft a solution that gives the DAO a chance to focus on AIP voting based on the merits of the AIPs themselves – with the use cases they create and the value they add to the $APE ecosystem as the primary concerns.
If we can shape the voting system to feel equitable for smaller holders, protect against Sybil attacks, and fairly limit the ability to buy AIP approvals – and we can get to a point where all voters large are small are viewing meaningful grant allocations as a necessary function for the growth of the DAO and the $APE ecosystem – then we all win.
@badteeth Well said. But here’s the thing. I have near zero confidence that any AIP designed to change the voting process, will pass. So, basically we’re stuck. And that’s precisely why I believe that this DAO is likely to die a slow and painful death - because of the [stifling] voting system. It’s inevitable.
My final AIP will attempt to incorporate both 1 person = 1 vote and with a cap (based on a percentage) - as per Yat’s suggestion - to appease the legacy whale hodlers.
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. @SmartAPE please see your messages for the next steps.