Has any culture-based DAO succeeded? At this point it’s reasonable to ask what the culture is here. Doesn’t seem to be a “grants DAO”, if we’re honest, and even a fantastic mission statement will probably only serve as irony rather than change of direction.
If we’re going to presume motivation, it’s most reasonable to presume that any whale, guppy, gov/SC, foundation or founder with any smarts has their crypto holdings at least hedged if not being outright short, in which case one could argue they’re advantaged by declining nominal price of the token.
Better to focus on what is and what we know however. The system is rotten, ineffective, inconsistent, easily abused, and has been abused. Whales, and others, voted down shielded voting. No one - ever - voted for the system(s) we have, or for a 50.1% pass threshold, or for hiding Abstain totals during active voting periods.
Did anyone vote for vote delegation? That’s a rotten thing too, and also wide open to abuse.
At every turn we’ve copied - without voting for - the worst and most corrupt systems IRL has to offer, including how we staff key roles, yet with more and easier attack vectors, far less transparency (didn’t think that was possible), and less, if any repercussions for incompetency or bad actors than IRL (didn’t think that was possible either).
100%. I don’t know why others insist on confusing readers. There is no confusion in terms of governance. It is clearly stated on the website here:
One ApeCoin is equal to one vote. If APE that can vote is capped it would be a major risk of it being a violation of it being a governance token as some tokens would have their governance function revoked. Also it is likely to be tagged “Return for Reconstruction” for this reason: Proposal is at odds with the mission/values of the DAO as the proposal is at odds with 1 APE = 1 Vote.
FYI holders of ApeCoin have not been called Apes, that terminology was used for BAYC and MAYC holders. As ApeCoin Dao is separate to Yuga, holders of APE could be called Apers, currently we have no term for them, like we don’t have a term for people who hold BTC, ETH, USD, EUR, CNY, HKD, etc. We don’t put a $ sign in front of APE as we don’t put a $ in front of BTC. $ is specific for certain fiat currrency.
There’s no confusion. If the value of the voter’s bag determines the number of votes that can be cast, then it’s not the same thing.
As I stated above:
For the purposes of voting - the whole reason for this AIP - 1 APE with 500 $APE isn’t the same as 1 APE with 1 $APE.
And it’s certainly not the same as One APE equals one APE
ergo, the entire premise of that aspect of my AIP - as clearly stated in the AIP itself - is that for 1 APE to truly equal 1 vote, the value of $APE in the APE wallet must be disregarded. And thus we end up with the true intent of One APE equals one APE
You literally just had an AIP pass which required 1 $APE - instead of fractions thereof - to vote.
The use of a $ in front of a token nomenclature is to denote that it’s currency. This is, and has always been, the standard. It’s got nothing to do with the $ symbol being the USD denominator.
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.
1 APE = 1 APE is about equality of voting power NOT equity amongst wallets. It specifically uses the term equality and not equity.
I said you need 1 APE to vote. I never use the Dollar sign for APE which is not called APE dollar, like (USD) US Dollar or (AUD) AU Dollar or other denominations such as GBP Pound. Rupee, Peso, Yuan, Euro etc. Dollar symbol is far from the global symbol of currency.
However, I do see you point that sub 1 APE amount are not included in voting, so in essence a minimum floor exists now. My understanding this was done to make sure once all APE is in circulation the maximum amount of APE tokens voting can never exceed 1 Billion.
DAO members vote on Snapshot. One ApeCoin is equal to one vote. As votes cannot be divided into fractions and the total number of votes shouldn’t ever exceed the number of tokens minted, the number of votes will be rounded down if a fractional number of tokens is owned by the voter (i.e., 100.1 tokens will result in 100 votes, and so will 100.9 tokens).
I am well aware. And it’s that same equality that I am saying should be extended to voting such that no one voter has more [voting] power than another due to the size of their bag. I have been very clear about this; so I really don’t understand what you’re going on about.
I wasn’t talking about your use of it. I was responding to your inference that somehow using $APE is wrong (hint: it isn’t). You are free to use it as you see fit. The rest of us will just stick to the norms.
And we’re talking about token as currency, nothing else. So none of the currencies you cited would apply here as that’s not what this is about.
I already have a math model running for this 51% attack vector. I’ve had it up since early July when I first decided to create a Discourse account after lurking for several months getting the lay of the land.
As of this morning, to control every - single - Snapshot vote, all you need is 2.98M in $APE (down from $3.12M) in one or more wallets. That’s based on voting pattern metrics which don’t require an aggregate of the entire $APE holdings. So, any person who can afford it - or even delegated accounts - can do this. Today. Right now.
And once the value of $APE depresses (which, according to trend metrics, it most certainly will) to below $1.58 per $APE, it only gets easier - and a lot worse.
Imagine if someone who can afford it, for example @Machibigbrother, wants to pass his $15M AIP-304, he could do it with that amount of $APE. All it would take is the aforementioned amount, and for good measure and risk mitigation, wait until the last 4.3 mins of vote closing, before voting on the AIP. And it will pass.
Here’s the thing; though it would be highly irregular, there’s nothing that the DAO can do about it. Except maybe refuse to perform the related AIP tasks. Then they’d get sued. At that point, it’s bye-bye DAO because, as I’ve said before, there’s no way on this God’s Earth that our DAO - in its current form - survives first contact with a lawsuit let alone regulatory scrutiny.
I have spent almost two months talking about the flaws in this voting system; and so, if nothing else, even after this AIP fails - which I am all but certain that it will - there will be a record of my warnings and advisory. I am usually - if not always - right, about stuff like this.
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.
I had considered this suggestion but discarded it because mathematically - even with an imposed cap - we would still end up with the same inequality and inequitable bias.
I’m actually pleasantly surprised seeing all the comments this idea has received. I think there is undoubtedly a genuine consensus that voting reform is the way forward.
I really have nothing else to add that hasn’t already been said, however, just wanted to thank you for driving thoughtful discussion here so well. Needless to say - I hope to see change sooner rather than later.
Yes - indeed. The question is, what form will reform take? It’s going to be very difficult to get this to pass, but at least someone had to try. Maybe down the road someone will come up with something that eventually passes - though it’s highly unlikely because anything that gives up power is a non-starter.
Introducing a novel solution to address the current voting system challenges within ApeCoin DAO. The proposal entails implementing a dynamic voting power algorithm that incentivizes long-term commitment, discourages last-minute participation, and ensures fairness in decision-making.
