This AIP proposes the downsize of the Special Council member position from AIP-1 in the ApeCoin DAO, from 5 members down to 3. Including all current, forthcoming and future terms detailed in AIP-137 and AIP-138.
Since March 2022, the inception of Special Council member roles has been instrumental in the administration of DAO proposals and serving the community vision. Given the current market conditions, prudence in resource allocation emerges as a strategy for ensuring the prosperity of ApeCoin DAO. As such, a step towards this objective would be to streamline the current Special Council from its present count of five members to a more focused and efficient assembly of three.
After hearing Machi speak during one of his spaces, he gave me the idea to make this AIP and propose the idea. Whether it passes or not, it would be great to see this AIP going to vote and see what the community feels about downsizing the Special Council member position.
BENEFIT TO APECOIN ECOSYSTEM
Transitioning from a five-member to a three-member structure would significantly enhance focus and efficiency. With fewer decision-makers, scheduling meetings and expediting AIP reviews become more seamless, leading to quicker processes and streamlined operations. Moreover, this transition presents substantial cost savings, amounting to $500,000 annually, thus empowering the DAO to allocate resources more effectively.
Special Council Members: Administering DAO proposals and aligning with the community’s vision.
Administrators: WebSlinger, in charge of Finance, Legal, Operations, Compliance & Treasury.
STEPS TO IMPLEMENT
If the AIP passes, initiate a dialogue with the Administrators (WebSlinger) & the Ape Foundation, to implement and execute the proposed downsize to the Special Council member position.
If the AIP is approved, execution on how to approach the downisize will start immediately.
$0. No costs for the ApeCoin DAO. Instead it will save the DAO up to $500.000 a year.
While I appreciate your care to the DAO’s treasury, I must express my frustration with this proposal, and probably more to come. It appears highly unprofessional and lacks a comprehensive understanding of the impact it will have on our DAO. Shrinking the Special Council members by two could seriously disrupt our ability to review AIPs effectively. If we’re so keen on your vision, why stop at the Special Council? Perhaps we should consider reducing the facilitator roles as well, or even reconsider having them entirely, returning those responsibilities to the Ape Foundation (did you check the reduce time we achieve by having others execute stuff for the DAO? https://x.com/red_vulkan/status/1699540118653243638?s=46&t=1T7mLjwxBcHZuxN1IZiwEA).
Furthermore, the notion that everything needs to go through AIPs is not only inefficient but also detrimental to our progress. We should be focusing on building and improving, not tearing down what we’ve built. IMO the better platform to address that is Ape Assembly.
Please withdraw this AIP, and if you disagree with me here, so please submit your proposal with Ape Assembly.
Thank you for your concerns MisterHype. This is an idea, not right or wrong, I believe some downsizing could be beneficial for the current situation we find ourselves in.
That being said I don’t have the power to decide though, so if the community feels like it’s best to keep the members at 5 that’s great, but also if they want to change the status quo and change it to 3 they should have the right to vote.
Perhaps we should. I believe It’s important to express and voice out what the community feels and give anybody the chance to vote. We’ll see.
Honestly this is a weird take, imagine SC members being all the 5 fingers of a hand supporting or holding onto something, you cant get a good grip with just 3 fingers, it’ll stress those fingers out to the the sheer pressure of the object they’re holding due to gravity. Here gravity means all the AIPs that goes to review.
Only 3 special council members looking over all the crucial aspect of AIP process would drastically effect the current time it takes for an entire process of AIP ideas to final voting.
Big no from my side.
Hi guys, Clement here from DAO Times. @Moonlyght have you considered other cost-cutting methods? I think I saw another proposal asking to lower the pay of members of the SC from next term.
Rather than outrightly axe two members, which becomes a huge centralization risks, I suggest dialoging with current SC members to see if they can accept a pay cut given the current market conditions.
But as a first step, you should educate the house on what the SC does and who does what. Are there overlapping functions? You assumed that the number of new proposals may have resumed. We need numbers to back up these claims. Cheers.
In line with my comments regarding salary cuts. I feel a good approach is to review what APE coin is trying to achieve along side roles and responsibilities. from there you can develop objectively the right pay structure and number of people.
As much as I appreciate that, it says everything and nothing at the same time. Hopefully the Weekly reports AIP will go live shortly and if it passes we might be able to have more knowledge on what is being done execution wise. Which again, I believe is mainly just attending meetings and reviewing AIPs.
I don’t think we can compare to the $$$ in treasury held. I mainly looked at the number of AIPs that currently go to Admin Review and I think with a group of 3 the work would be more focused and efficient. But again, that’s my opinion, if people think 5 is perfect then I’m ok with that, as long as the community can decide.
Not really in favour of downsizing. We are just barely picking up with speed on things with the new process structure . I suggest we re-evaluate once things are more stable . Not too sure how much workload or time taken up for each individual too and downsizing now would be burdensome as we are still trying to get things right and up to speed