AIP-436: Enhancing Financial Decision-Making with Super Majority Voting of 2/3's for Allocations over US $500,000

After significant community feedback support, I have changed the supermajority vote to 2/3’s rather than the original 75% to protect more against large wallet veto power.

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

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

This proposal has been assigned the AIP ID Number 436.

Edits have been made to this Topic, by the author, by the author’s request, or with the author’s consent. You can click the Pencil icon at the top of the post to see these edits.

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

Kind Regards,

-@Facilitators

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

Our team has reviewed and discussed @capetaintrippy 's AIP Draft and have sent a list of initial questions. We await answers.

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

Kind Regards,

-@Facilitators

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@capetaintrippy has responded to our questions and has provided consent to share them in this forum for the community.

1. Is this supermajority vote to be based upon the total number of tokens cast during voting or the total number of wallets?

Total number of tokens.

2. For AIPs with funding requests in $APE, at what point is the USD value to be “locked in?” Our suggestion is that this determination is made during the review period prior to the voting phase, and to be clarified for the community under the Overall Cost section of the relevant proposals.

Great question. This determination must be made and locked once approved by SC and before it goes to vote.

3. Regarding the Reporting Expectations section, we recommend providing some guidance for the community to consider for reviewing the impact of this proposal in the future. I.E. “The expectation is that this proposal would be implemented by the DAO’s administrative team. The community should regularly review the impact of this proposal. If accepted, the administration and the community should review the impact of the updates after the 3-month period for conflict ends.”

I am good with adding that language.

4. Please include any additional requests that are directed towards the APE Foundation, especially concerning the community discussion platforms, website, or Snapshot.

The APE Foundation will be responsible for determining which AIPs qualify for the supermajority vote and communicating that to the ApeCoin DAO community, as well as properly setting this up for Snapshot.

5. Do you provide consent to apply updates to the relevant areas of your proposal based on your responses to the questions above?

Yes.

6. Do you provide consent to share these questions and answers with the community in this forum?

Yes.

Edits have been made to this Topic, by the author, by the author’s request, or with the author’s consent. You can click the Pencil icon at the top of the post to see these edits.

A DAR package is being worked on and upon completion this AIP will move into Administrative Review. Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.

Kind Regards,

-@Facilitators

Thank you Captain.This is the good idea for Dao.

1 Like

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

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

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

Kind Regards,

-@Facilitators

I’d be down to participate

I like the intention of this proposal, as written it could solve some challenges, yet simultaneously create new and bigger challenges, while compounding on other existing challenges as well

If you add in a quorum it makes much more sense.

Addition:

Quorum of 30m needed for AIPs over 500K.

And maybe something like:

Quorum of 35m needed for AIPs over 1m.

OG Idea came from Lufish.eth

1 Like