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,
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,
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 ālocked in?ā 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. āThe expectation is that this proposal would be implemented by the DAOās 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.ā
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 authorās request, or with the authorās 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,
Thank you Captain.This is the good idea for Dao.
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,
Iād 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
Only trouble Iāve seen with higher Quorums is that it can lead to exactly zero proposals passing
Happened in another DAO I was in and now itās dissolved and gone
Thanks MB.
My personal opinion is we donāt need either - no 66.6% for higher asks and no quorums.
Also then brings up the topic of ABSTAIN votes - should they be included somehow - many think they should. Iām not so agreeable there.
Way I see it is if youāve asking for $10k or $1m I will still give the idea the same scrutiny and consideration - a good idea does not need to cost millions is my view.
I just think if your going to make the pass rate 66.6% (and Iāve already provided data to show that the two top wallets do that on their own often), to counter that happening (two top wallets being the only way to push through higher asks) you must also incorporate a quorum to add balance.
So for example, the two top wallets maybe able to have 66.6% of the vote often at around 13m, but without further community agreement we can still stop them (adding quorum).
As someone mainly concentrated on these topics in my spare time Iāve come to the conclusion - we either vote NO to this completely or it must have a QUORUM added. If not the two top wallets always have the power to push through and stop bigger asks. Itās that simple really.
Tl;dr - this idea, if passed, would see the final decision on any larger asks always be dependent on the top two wallets voting yes or not voting at all/abstaining. This is yet another barrier for the common man/woman.
Our system has worked fine up until now. This idea is a Trojan horse (unintentional perhaps ) that delivers ultimate power to the top wallets.
Added notes:
The image below shows a few recent votes - see how moca and horizen alone (two top walllets) had well over the 66.6% threshold. Without a quorum the community votes (in future similar incidences) have ZERO impact, add a quorum and their voices will count.
We all want to see AIPs either pass resoundingly or fail likewise, but when there is disagreement and division/divided views, we need a system that is fair - taking to twitter to bash AIPs and authors is not a good look - but unfortunately was the only option people saw last week. Adding a threshold that is only achievable if the two top wallets agree or donāt disagree will only add to these occurrences imo.
Iām of the same general opinion here. I like the principle of more community support for higher budget proposals, but the whole concept is overthrown by the reality that 66.6% of recent average voting power is controlled by the top 3 wallets, which overruns community vote altogether
I like abstain votes, it lets people participate in the voting and communicate that they donāt feel strongly enough in either direction, removing abstain can give the false impression that people donāt care cuz their votes never show up on the polls, that also happened in another DAO I was in and not seeing the abstains on the polls was discouraging to them
Agreed 100%
This is exactly why I donāt support this proposal as written. I support it in principle, but not as written at the present time. The centralization of power topic needs to be addressed first
Ya I get thatā¦very sad to see, and I hope in the future people find a more supportive and constructive way to communicate
Agree!!We need it.This is the suitable budget
Why ignore abstained votes? Why not say 51% of all votes, including abstain votes in the total?
Also I agree critical governance rules should be a category for a higher limit.
Also a scale makes sense. 500k, 1m, 2m etc.
Personally I still think moving from pure grants to I including investing as an LP in web3 funds is important. The profits from the fund investments can partly be used into more automated grant funding.
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
Edits have been made to this Topic, by the author, by the authorās request, or with the authorās 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,
Itās pretty clear based on the continuous decline of market price over the past year that the current strategy to ābuyā market share through the stripping of the DAO reserves is not working. You can not buy confidence. And spending money on vanity projects (in the name of marketing) is counter productive.
I think the community should build on this concept to show that we can control our spend and that market participants can be comfortable and confident to buy APE without worry that their own DAO is dumping on them at every opportunity.
We just spent 100million on the Banana Bill, isnāt that enough for now.
Can we take a break please before itās too late!
Or is the intent of our whales just to raid the DAO and dump!
Our whales need to protect the rest of us, so hopefully those with power will do something about this and build on this AIP!
Iād like to see a maximum spend per annum and a cap on individual projects to be linked to the market price and performance. The better APE performs the more equity will be releasable each year.
Iād also like to see financial performance figures for any project proposals over 250k. Return on investment figures, especially expectations of years to break even. Anything that is āmarketingā i.e will not return a profit, to be taken from an agreed marketing fund that is budgeted each year.
Banks would not give money out without clear business models showing how they will make a profit, why are we?
A business has a fixed marketing budget because itās so easy to overspend on something you can not easily demonstrate value on. Yet we only go by how āgoodā or ācoolā something sounds with no controls.
We need some structure as this is a community business and also kind of a bank.
This proposal is live for vote at Snapshot. The voting period closes 13 days from now at 9PM EST.
The AIP implementation is administered by the Ape Foundation. Implementation may be immaterially or materially altered to optimize for security, usability, to protect APE holders, and otherwise to effect the intent of the AIP. Any material deviations from an AIP, as initially approved, will be disclosed to the APE holder community.
This line needs some clarification. Does this mean it can apply to other AIPs not specifically asking for a funding request over 250,000 USD? For example for a Constitutional AIP vs a Non-Constitutional AIP.
This line is very open to interpretation. I think this must be clarified to make an informed vote.
Also, there is no discussion here is in terms of Quorum as a percentage of total APE Circulating Supply.
My understanding the motive behind this AIP is to give a 3 month window to get: ApeChain launched, a the New Charter voted on and an ability to breakdown AIP asks to enhance accountability? Correct me if my understanding is wrong.
So this AIP is well on its way to passing because Moca [barely] voted FOR. That means +6.3M.
I expect Horizen to vote in favor, even though last time I checked their voting wallet was down to 3.1M (down from 4.3M during the Banana Bill vote which was already down from the 6.7M during ApeChain vote).
Seeing as most of us - not just whales - agree that we absolutely must curb foolish spending in the DAO, I expect that this AIP would pass next week.
If this AIP passes, the on-going end result would be that BOTH Moca + Horizen would have to agree or disagree on a proposal to determine its fate.
Weāre entering a new era now, guys - Iām here for it.
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
The voting period has closed for this proposal and it has been accepted with a 92.31% pass rate. The proposal will be passed on for implementation.
Follow this proposal under the AIP Transparency and Execution Category. A new post has been created here, Implementation Update | AIP-436: Enhancing Financial Decision-Making with Voting of 69% for Allocations over US $250,000, and further updates will be posted.
Thanks,