I think what matters here is that from the point-of-view of the AIP’s author, 1 ape (meaning 1 human) having an equal vote to another ape, is a superior form of governance to 1 $APE = 1 $APE. From there people can agree or disagree. The initial DAO statement made by the founders would have been more clear if they said $APE vs. APE.
If this was said plainly without trying to misrepresent a phrase with provenance, it would be so much more straightforward to respond to. In any case, I am personally completely against 1 human = 1 vote because its the most gameable system. It’s so straightforward on how to abuse a system like that, I hope no one seriously considers it. Just to be clear, I don’t think it’s an always bad system. It can work for small groups. It just doesn’t scale.
You can see yat’s own replies here and here which explains some of the reasonings. tl:dr 1 human != 1 human
I do think seeing the massive influence that Machi currently has with his voting power should be at least concerning to people. I do not personally believe having that much centralized power in a decentralized system is a good thing.
This is a concerning issue but I think there are a couple ways to tackle this. But in general I think this fear has been overblown. In AIP 316 for example, the against side was so unanimous, no matter the # of wallets or the token they represent, even a Machi Yes couldnt have saved it. There are also lots of other instances where a Machi No has been beaten. Machi voting one way definitely makes things much more difficult. But there are a few other large wallets out there. For example, I think the Mocas wield a ton more influence. They also vote much more consistently. Machi sometimes doesn’t even vote.
My approach to this would be to activate more voters and get them to delegate so that we have lots of whales. This also makes the pitching of AIPs much more streamlined. If token owners want to vote differently, they still can. Delegation also works within the current framework so we don’t have to burn everything to the ground.
But even this isn’t the point of this AIP. It’s to remove the Special Council. 1 APE = 1 APE was just used as a scapegoat for this purpose. So discussing this nuanced topic is sort of pointless here.
I think that 1 human = 1 human is the most equitable system. Would require a KYC-like system to ensure people don’t game it. Biggest risk is reduction in the number of people voting. You’d need to do it to actually figure out the impact. I don’t think Yat makes a very compelling argument, TBH, even though I respect his opinion.
It also does scale. Worldwide elections seem to scale fairly well. Unsure where that’s coming from.
Machi’s bags continue to grow and are currently the largest they’ve ever been. Turns out when you can buy elections, certain people are going to do that. It’s the worst part of politics manifested into a system.
So while there’s 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
I’m 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
It’s not that simple. And I am 100% certain that 1) you haven’t actually done the math 2) you don’t 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 isn’t 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 isn’t 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 it’s 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. That’s how teams work. I don’t 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. That’s 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 else’s ‘math’ for having stepped up - especially in the face of incredible vocal or silent derision.
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.
We need weekly report of all spendings, specially on promotive types of AIPs like spaces & videos, and most likely reducing those sponsorships that didn’t deliver promised new onboarding and new participants at the space, even removing a free support.
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.
I don’t understand the statement “no one wants to touch” token. It is used in gaming as a reword, exchange & even change for art token. Its not always about DEFI
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.
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 don’t 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
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 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. It’s 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 it’s not up to me. It’s up to the community because it’s their votes.
It’s all about a clean start at the top. Just like the board of a corporation which goes through an investor “no vote” 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 they’re 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.
