AIP-386: Add Guideline to have AIPs request only in $APE

PROPOSAL NAME: Add Guideline to have AIPs request only in $APE

PROPOSAL CATEGORY: Process

ABSTRACT:

This proposal aims to create a guideline that requires a proposal maker requesting funding to denominate their request in $APE rather than USD but allows for the ability to add the estimated value in USD for reference. The goal is to remind and reinforce that we are the ApeCoin community with a treasury denominated in $APE. Proposal makers that truly support our DAO, will plan to the best of their ability to receive and manage funds in $APE giving us a better context as to how much of our treasury is being used. Our treasury has a dwindling amount of $APE that we can accurately track spending, but granting AIPs in USD, allows us to lose track of our treasury due to the nature of $APE value fluctuating.

BENEFIT TO APECOIN ECOSYSTEM:

  • DAO Treasury Bookkeeping made easier

  • We honor our ethos of being the ApeCoin DAO

  • It reinforces to others that we are $APE not USD therefore asking for money should keep our currency at the forefront of their proposal.

PLATFORMS & TECHNOLOGIES:

ApeCoin Forum + Snapshot

STEPS TO IMPLEMENT & TIMELINE:

Add to the current guidelines of AIP creation to request funding in $APE with the ability to share the estimated USD Value currently at the time of the proposal.

OVERALL COST:

0 $APE

So basically all proposals asking for funding must request APECOIN and not dollars even if estimate dollars, it will never be more or less in Apecoin?
I thing putting “NEVER MORE OR LESS in this amount of APECOIN” is important to keep track.

Yes, all proposals must ask for funding denoted in $APE.

Our DAO Treasury is $APE, We are the $APE DAO.

Logistically speaking, it’s sensible for us to keep track of our actual $APE, not the value of $APE in USD because it’s unpredictable. I didn’t add a + or - minus to the AIP because I think it lends itself to too much wiggle room. Ask for a fixed amount. The DAO doesn’t have to want to guess what you may or may not want in the future. Your ask is already an estimation of on several factors but if you believe in $APE, you’ll ask for $APE. Tired of people treating the DAO like it’s an ATM for Cash. I get it’s hard to say a fixed number when the coin fluctuates in value, but it works both ways. The DAO is #1 and its easier, safer and better to track our treasury in $APE.

Small Edit: I appreciate your opinion. If more people like the ranged idea, could be a useful implementation.

2 Likes

What might you say to an author who is proposing an Overall Cost section that aligns directly with their labor costs and other fixed expenses? If I need $50k in $APE to pay for materials, contractors, etc. and by the time the proposal is finally implemented that same amount of $APE is worth half as much, how might you propose we reconcile this discrepancy?

2 Likes

I agree with this concern.

Ultimately when you run a business or are trying to build one, you’re going to have to go in and estimate costs across various factors, which is hard to do well when thinking in fiat terms. When you then move to trying to price via a highly speculative asset, doing so accurately becomes basically impossible.

Speaking for myself, if I was in that position, I would then wildly overestimate my cost to try to bake in the volatility risk of coin prices throughout the timeline of when I submitted my AIP and when if passed I would receive my payout. This could be several months. At a minimum I’d be requesting 2x what I thought I’d actually need as $APE going down in half has occurred in similar timelines several times before. Of course volatility doesn’t just mean go down, it could also moonshot in price, making the proposal a no go because now you’re requesting so much more money than is reasonable for what you’re delivering.

I don’t see how that added volatility benefits the person submitting the AIP nor the DAO. Underpaid proposals are more likely to result in failure to deliver, and overpaid proposals are just a waste of capital. I do agree that all AIPs should be paid out in $APE, but I think it’s reasonable to benchmark the payment amount on a fiat value that’s going to be required to properly deliver.

3 Likes

Hi @DareVader,

The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in less than 24 hours.

  • If you’re content with the feedback received, your next steps are to finalize your proposal using the AIP Draft Template.

  • A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft. Upon receipt of the final Draft, we will review and provide instructions on the next steps.

  • Are you ready to proceed to the next phase or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?

We look forward to hearing from you.

-@Facilitators

This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@DareVader has completed editing their AIP Idea to be their AIP Draft.

This proposal has been assigned the AIP ID Number 386.

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.

Kind Regards,

-@Facilitators

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

We have no further questions for @DareVader. This AIP is now under Administrative Review.

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.

Kind Regards,

-@Facilitators

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

This AIP Idea was tagged as “Needs Administrative Review” and sent to the Special Council. Upon careful review, the proposal has been deemed “Return for Reconstruction”. In doing so, the Special Council cited:

It’s not reasonable to have every AIP denominated in ApeCoin when the intention is to ensure they have the funding to meet the obligations in their AIP. Requiring all proposals to be denominated in $APE would compromise the ability of the DAO to offer competitive grants that provide business certainty to grant recipients.

We thank the author for their participation and encourage everyone to continue sharing ideas with the ApeCoin DAO Community.

This Topic will be moved to and remain in the Final AIPs - Returned for Reconstruction category. The author may resubmit their proposal if they wish.

-@Facilitators

1 Like