Again, you are “hypothetically” implying apecoin holder might be not trustworthy again. This is not a right approach to embrace the coins holders into the community.
I welcome any proposal which highlights the current situation regarding the voting system/setup.
I do not totally agree with the proposal, however we cannot recover distributed apecoin so I understand why it is proposed extra be given.
If you believe that it is in the interest of the DAO to be controlled by a few large holders and feel they will always do the best for everyone as a whole we will have to simply agree to disagree and try to have meaningful conversations on the topic in the future.
This current back and forth between the two of us serves no benefit to the community.
So I disagree with you and we will continue to take and fight our chosen sides along the way!
3 Likes
I don’t think our back and forth conversation is trying to fight certain sider, instead, I respect every different opinion during the discussion period. After thorough discussion and final AIP snapshot, I will esteem the result. This is how we make Dao real dao and healthy.
3 Likes
I think we should assume good intent, but crypto and NFTs are founded on trustless systems, so we should have no implicit social contract enforcing our trust in one another.
3 Likes
If we are going to base our votes strictly on what maximizes the value of $ApeCoin its not going to be much of a DAO. I would say anyone who is investing in $Apecoin for its currency value would have better luck in another asset. If $APE isn’t distributed the economy will not self sustain. Hard stop. Two things must happen. We must create value within the ecosystem, and we must transact in trade of that value. So $APE should not be recklessly distributed, but it must be distributed, in fairly large supply, in order to stimulate value transaction. That’s how economies live.
4 Likes
(Speaking out loud to no one in particular)
I do think more general education on DAO’s and governance mechanisms are needed in order to have meaningful conversation. There seems to be a misunderstanding around how BAYC & MAYC NFT holders are entitled to voting rights as opposed to APE coin holders, or even worse how a single coin holder is entitled to the same voting rights as those with significantly larger vested interests at stake.
There’s no need to reinvent the wheel, many DeFi projects have been successfully navigating on chain governance for years now, look at MakerDAO. 1 coin = 1 vote, this has worked for a long time.
For those concerned about not having the voting power they feel they deserve, anyone is welcome to petition the community to delegate their votes to you. You can do this on Snapshot: Snapshot
Just enter the ethereum address or ENS name of the person you want to represent you and your vote on Snapshot. You don’t need to send a transaction, and you won’t be moving any APE coin, but you will be giving your voting power to that person. In this way, any valuable active governance participant with $0 in APE coin can still garner 100’s of thousands if not millions of APE coin worth of voting power on AIP’s.
IMO, there’s no need to redistribute APE coins for “voting reasons,” when we can already delegate our votes to other people.
5 Likes
@Amplify in order to attract talent and the will to apply it, we must present an oportunity for those who posses it to gain a meaningful stake in the DAO. This is a simple matter of temporal discounting, putting the long term growth and prosperity of the DAO above our own personal gain and the ratio of our personal influence. The long term survival of the DAO depends on the aggregate value created by its members. The question is, are the current equity holders and whatever influence they command capable of generating enough value to sustain the DAO long term. I would argue that we have a short window of oportunity to grow that core by adding high quality members. The goal being to increase the core aggregate talent potential of the DAO by as much as possible while maintaining the core ideals. The way to achieve this is to sponsor competitions which evaluate the capabilities of the competitors, granting the winners an equity stake, or land. Beyond that, DAO members of all talent level have value and can contribute to value creation. So we need a self regulating way to distribute the DAO currency in such way that it reaches equilibrium within the population, and redistributes itself in accord with individual contribution to the common good. I agree that we should learn from the examples that have come before us in the DeFi community and beyond. But we should also seek to innovate and ideate, to risk and experiment, and ultimately to drive forward.
1 Like
I agree with you. To do this, I think we should explore existing crypto native solutions for attracting talent. The most commonly used is a bounty board. I’ve included some examples below:
2 Likes
Thanks @Amplify, I agree that we should incorporate crypto native solutions into whatever competitions we construct. In my view it’s important that we create a mythology of ritual competition around solutions in platforms like bounty board. A sort of branded narrative journey, with plenty of ceremony and hyperbolic pageantry. I mean big time Olympic level stuff, Super Bowl, World Cup stuff, with cascading orchestral crashes and fireworks sprawling creation and destruction across the digital sky.
I believe there is a hierarchy of identity at play here. At the top we are all humans, ideally working toward a better world for all humans.
Next there are major classes of identity such as nationality, gender, religious, and racial identity.
Then maybe professional identity, club identity, and web2 platform identities.
Web3 and DAO identities are still in the process of forming, but there are some major fundamental reasons why they will be more significant than Web2 identities.
In most cases, how people find and bind to identities has been predetermined. But we are now on the cusp of a new era of identity, and we are about to witness the largest single identity creation event in human history, as the concept of meta-identity, foreshadowed in Web1 and Web2 , unfolds its wings and evolves to its final form.
There is an oportunity, as this historic event unfolds. An oportunity to engineer, for selected individuals, the bonding event; and capture some of the product of humanities collective metaphoric metaverse metamorphosis as fuel for the creation of the metaverse itself. A sort of bootstrapping act of creating the thing with the energy harvested from the reaction of its creation. Self catalyzing, self perpetuating reactions in stable systems far from equilibrium don’t happen often in nature. Autopoiesis a la la causa sui. I suspect that Barron Munchausen would approve, if not Ilya Prigogine, but I digress.
One potential way of engineering these bonding events, is to establish a narrative in which the winners of a competition that we sponsor (we being the DAO) are granted equity within the Ape community. If we enact an incentivized, merit guided, DAO expansion policy, through publicly celebrated competition; we will be creating an instinctually and emotionally powerful forcing function. A function for the development of bonded allegiance to the DAO, by a large number of the currently unbound individuals who have yet to incorporate the concept of a DAO into their list of valid ways of identifying themselves.
This is a unique moment in history, where the majority of the population, and their associated talent (potential to do good, or create value), are not yet exposed to the next dominant paradigm. If our version of the metaverse is going to take root and survive, we need to actively construct self propagating forcing functions with network effects which maximize the flow of talent into the DAO.
The Ape Crusades are upon us. There is a limited window before another contender for ‘Prime Metaverse’ reaches critical mass. Like it or not, we are all competing in The Boredom Games. The question is, are we going to play like we mean it?
3 Likes
It is not clear what do you mean by allocation “by supply”, if you meant allocation by max supply price, this is what happened, and then divided by the token numbers. Infact in aggregate, you could say that mayc holders were controlling almost half of the voting power of bayc. If many mayc holders later sold their bags or used the coins to purchase lands, it is nobody’s fault.
Others in the replies already mentioned alternative and legit ways to let even small single bags count, rather than thinking of monetary giveaways with a retrospective complain.
Increase participation is a noble purpose but this is not a proper base to start a discussion.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
Thank you @Papasito for your ideas and the ApeCoin DAO community for the thoughtful discussions. A moderator will get in touch with the author to draft the AIP in the appropriate template. Once the AIP is drafted and meets all the DAO-approved guidelines, the proposal will be posted on Snapshot for live official voting at: Snapshot
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments. @Papasito please see your messages for the next steps.
1 Like
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
The Special Council has deemed this AIP to be returned for reconstruction. As written, it is unclear how this proposal, which requests a substantial allocation of the DAO treasury, will expand and promote the entire ApeCoin community, rather than a single subset.
A revised proposal is welcomed and a resubmission should include an explanation of how it has been changed in accordance with this feedback.
Thank you for your participation in the ApeCoin DAO.
-moderator
4 Likes