So, with barely 4 voting cycles left in Oct, and with AIP-138 indicating that Nov-Dec is the cycle one time-line for voting, I am not sure that AIP-337 will be up for vote before the Nov election cycle.
Also @Moonlyght, I think we need an AIP that provides certainty as to the timeline for an AIP to go from drafts to admin review to vote. I will probably write up that one because right now there’s no transparency or timeline for when AIPs go through the process - and so, we just keep guessing as to when they actually leave admin review and go up for vote.
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.
Strongly disagree. There are dozens, if not hundreds of DAOs in the ether. One of the only ways to evaluate a DAO is how well it governs itself.
If the governance process or qualifications of elected officials are not up to par, how can you even begin to take the DAO seriously? As an investor or project looking to participate, I would just join a better managed DAO.
This directly effects the native currency of the DAO. If the DAO is just a joke plutocracy, then the value of a vote is $0 and so is the token.
There was an earlier version of this AIP (AIP-277) that called for an immediate reduction in all present SC salaries, which was Returned for Reconstruction for reasons not unlike the ones you made mention of.
This one would apply to anyone appointed for the term beginning January 1, 2024… this upcoming election.
All accurate points but not entirely relevant for this thread. I was just reinforcing the point that others have made about SC scope/responsibilities being far less than what would be expected in other representative type roles.
I think its sort of relevant. I’ve seen this argument made several times, which is an interesting comparison, but to make it fair I think you also have to look at the rest of things that this salary has to pay for:
Legal (this a bit more subjective/speculative but is also worth listing)
This position appears to be full-time, so I would suspect that it should also compensate for these expenses.
The position is not currently defined as full-time, but several members of the SC say they work much greater than typical full-time hours. I do think future SC roles should be clearly defined as full-time, amongst other requirements. An actual list of requirements, including some hard requirements, is a change I’d love to see in many DAO funded roles.