DMed to not derail this discussion.
So while thereās been a rise in number of AIP and members in the DAO, not to forget the amount of AIPs that go into draft and review you want to :
#1 Reduce special council members
#2 Reduce the salaries
#3 Create even more strict barrier for the position
Iām sorry the maths aint mathing coz of the following reason in my opinion:
#1 Less no. of SC meaning increased work on individuals
#2 Increased work of evaluating AIPs + seeing potential problem that may arise for the DAO and foundation per individuals at a reduce pay
#3 Wanting to put up an even more strong barrier where its already limited to fewer people at a reduce pay but double the workload
Lmao
Itās not that simple. And I am 100% certain that 1) you havenāt actually done the math 2) you donāt have the metrics that I have and created. I cite them for a reason.
Reducing the 5 members - who work part-time - to 3 who work full-time is somehow, bad?
Saving the DAO money in a time of economic crisis is somehow, bad?
Requiring experienced people in roles that govern what happens to the treasury in a multi-million Dollar enterprise and who adhere strictly to the rules without fear or favor, is somehow, bad?
FYI. The amount of work that goes into an AIP isnāt a metric that neither you nor I have access to. So, saying that reducing the team from 5 to 3 is somehow going to increase the workload isnāt based on facts. What is based on facts is the number of AIPs that have been created and the length of time (currently 31 days, down from 36) that it currently takes to go to vote. And itās one of the primary complaints about the current system.
The way to solve problems is to look for solutions or to work with those who are actively working to create those solutions. Thatās how teams work. I donāt claim to have all the answers, and I am always learning. But the fact remains, I have vast experience and knowledge in running studios, managing people, multi-million Dollar budgets and projects etc. Thatās what I bring to the table - for FREE and with ZERO expectations or requests for payment or compensation of any kind. Everything else is just immaterial and inconsequential noise.
So, I urge you to focus on helping to find a solution, not to just criticize someone elseās āmathā for having stepped up - especially in the face of incredible vocal or silent derision.
1 Like
Gerry, let the community to speak, special councils aside. Special councils not suppose to put their opinions or affect the discussions, this is not the job of SC.
Do you want people to not trust you as a worker here?
I feel like with so many people voicing their concerns and immediately getting such DMs and other type of backlash from temporally highly payed workers, that suppose to help everyone and elevate them, the next AIP Mind be to remove all workers from the discussions and making then 100% secret.
Im looking forward to see your weekly report)
2 Likes
We need weekly report of all spendings, specially on promotive types of AIPs like spaces & videos, and most likely reducing those sponsorships that didnāt deliver promised new onboarding and new participants at the space, even removing a free support.
2 Likes
Where is it written that Iām not allowed to request clarification on an AIP in the forums?
Stay on topic please.
1 Like
I completely agree with your arguments @SmartAPE , our $ape token keeps losing value, a lot of spending beyond what is necessary in the DAO.
1 Like
I share the same opinion, this is absurd waste and very little clarity, there needs to be a clear weekly report so that even a child can understand what is happening.
3 Likes
I worry about the expenses and also the devaluation of the token.
Is this because of the market drop?
Or is there something beyond that?
I donāt understand the statement āno one wants to touchā token. It is used in gaming as a reword, exchange & even change for art token. Its not always about DEFI
About voting:
We have to keep 2 types of voting: Per token amount and per wallet, and its on the proposal writer how they want it to be voted.
Contracts CAN BE BREACHED lol
Anyone can be fired anytime lmao
1 Like
about you council comments about NON COMPLIANCE - you can always put the proposal of the dismissal of all or specific councils any time - just for that and put your reasoning if want.
There is no need to do a combined complicated AIP for that.
Hey @Evil about that comments of you 2:
I can partially understand where its coming from:
For people lately seams that councils have too MUCH time to NOT work on AIPs, instead a LOT of time of non stop traveling, spaces hanging, chill projects & else, versus siting in the office just here grinding. The general image & feel obviously not good. Plus taking vacations any time for any not APECOIN event?.. how can anyone take those seriously? This is a serious DAO , not a vibe space. So obviously any selfie obsession or space vibes is not a DEFI development. Token donāt go up from that or expand the ecosystem by someone showing up somewhere without teaching no one anything and having nothing to offer besides basic picture or so.
Token APE and BAYC expansions tactics are NOT the same, because APECOIN is a use case needed and NOT A BRAND, while BAYC is a culture & Brand that can use this case of token for the exchange purposes, while not even expanding the ecosystem .
I feel like this discussion have to be broken down into several topics.
Obviously having hired people who not coming from DEFI and dont know how to onboard such & keep them - its zero helpful you say - I say its just a temporal need while DAO is into dev process & still wrongly promoted.
Apecoin is for everyone obviously and this Cayman foundation, has ZERO to do with BAYC grants system. Plus BAYC under YUGALabs its absolutely separate company and not even an organisation
This confusion of 2 different monetary unrelated things - is what brings more confusion and we sure all need to work on its complete NON CONFUSION
2 Likes
One more thing - if someone believes that council gave some LEGAL while ILLEGAL advise - you should contact the DAO secretary; councils should be here to help versus providing LEGAL advises not being a layer at Caymans. Im shocked if this happen - this is not ok. It seams clearly on the interests of few if so. Is there any legal record of it or message?
I understand this factor
1 Like
I just want to make clear that the reason that I am advocating for the entire SC to be replaced has nothing to do any one person. Itās not personal for me because I believe that I am capable of separating business acumen and responsibility from personal feelings.
And so, to avoid any impressions of favoritism, that to me, was a cleaner and more equitable resolution. Especially since 3 positions are up for vote anyway.
And even so, if the AIP passes by the will of the DAO community, they can obviously nominate themselves when new elections are up. And itās not up to me. Itās up to the community because itās their votes.
Itās all about a clean start at the top. Just like the board of a corporation which goes through an investor āno voteā procedural vote.
And for those who keep asking me in DM what about the other teams, my response remains the same. That being, the GwG and our outstanding secretary, all perform their respective functions to the best of their collective abilities - and theyāre not responsible for the high level functions of the Special Council which is where the issues in my AIP originate from.
By having a brand new Special Council - all with C Suite credentials and experience - we better position the DAO for growth and prosperity.
2 Likes
This recently passed with around 6million votes and almost 100% voting for it. In the AIP I clarified 1 ApeCoin = 1 Vote
So there is no confusion on how the voting works as a governance token.
2 Likes
Nobody is denying or disputing that 1 $APE (ApeCoin) = 1 vote. It doesnāt matter if itās APE or Ape or $APE. Thatās not the issue.
The issue is that a wallet with 1M $APE = a wallet with 1M voting power
Thatās not equality. And thatās the point of contention so that we go to 1 (person) = 1 vote because thatās equitable. And yes, we would still need to solve the issue of delegated wallets, but thatās solvable - and we know this already.
2 Likes
I had posted an expansive explanation of the above (culled from this AIP) in another thread, but it was removed - likely because it was off-topic or something. I donāt know, as no specific reason was given. So, below is an abridged and more concise explanation of the logic behind this section of my AIP, and for those who donāt have the time to read the expansive discussions regarding AIP-277.
Nobody wants to see the Ape Foundation breach a contract that it signed. Thatās absolutely not the issue here. And as I have stated over and over, I am NOT in favor of doing that because I am old school and believe that contracts should be honored as originally written and agreed to. No exceptions.
The issue is that, by way of the reason given for the AIP-277 to be returned due to the possibility of contractual breaches, the Ape Foundation appears to have created and entered into contracts that it cannot terminate. On its face, I find that to be exceptionally problematic. Especially when we have attorneys and WebSlingers to prevent that sort of risk factor.
Regardless of that, the Ape Foundation prevented the AIP from going up to vote, though I donāt see a reason in the charter that prevents it; even with the āmay include but are not limited toā qualifier.
If I were in the Special Council, my advocacy would have been to send it up for vote. And if it passes, then we deal with the ramifications of terminating contracts as applicable and required by law and the contract terms.
So, if the Ape Foundation canāt reduce a contract salary due to a violation of said contract, then, I donāt understand how it could adhere to the AIP-1 terms which actually allows for the termination of Special Council members who are in fact on contract.
I hope this brings some additional clarity to this specific issue.
1 Like
1 = 1
10 = 10
10/10 = 10/10 = 1 = 1
You like mathematics.
Oh come on, man.
1 = 1 vote
10 = 10 votes
Thereās no divisor here because thatās not how the votes are tabulated.
Explain how a wallet with 1M $APE, and thus 1M voting power, ends up being the same as one with 1 $APE with 1 voting power.
Right now, thereās a wallet with 4.8M $APE and which just killed 3 AIPS - in sequence. How would it have been able to do that if that wallet was tabulated as ā1 person = 1 voteā?
3 Likes