@Cryptosheep I am glad that you brought this up because it’s part of the impetus for my AIP-471: Special Council To Propose Voting System Reform proposal which would include both quadratic voting as well as shielded voting. And in my Delegated ApeCoin Community Voting Wallet proposal, I added other requirements which go toward notification.
If we can get the voting system revised, then, as per that proposal, there’s no longer a need for the last minute notification because the value of the wallets would have no effect. While not as extensive as my own data used to create my analysis of the voting system, this GWG x LiveFast: Historical AIP Voting Analysis With Alternate Strategies discussion (it’s not a proposal) outlines the benefits of quadratic voting and the implications for the DAO.
And this is what I’ve always had a problem with.
This is a grants DAO and which, back in Nov 2023, there was a Clarification - AIP returning value back to the ApeCoin DAO about its ability to receive revenue (FYI we have yet to see one cent).
However, our DAO is currently run like a political system. There is literally no circumstance in RL whereby asking for a grant involves going around talking to govt. officials for them to support your grant request. For one thing, I believe it’s illegal. And because it requires authors to go out and ‘campaign’ for votes, that not only creates an undue burden for said authors but it also elevates delegations to positions they otherwise wouldn’t have. Sure, you can go talk to delegates if you see the need to do so, but the fact is that it’s the role of the delegates to be involved in the process; to the extent that they were delegated votes in the hopes that they would actually act obo the voters instead of expecting authors to come to them, hat in hand fashion.
Like the rest of us, delegates should know when proposals go up. They should also read and understand the proposals. And if they have questions or require an audience with the author for any reason, then they can always reach out to the author - from right there in the proposal.
The time it takes for delegates to, oh I dunno, get their act in gear and prepare for proposals is inconsequential because when they agreed to take on the responsibility, they also agreed to act in the best interests of the voters who delegated the wallets.
Delegates are a collection of voting power awarded to them; and for all intent and purposes, are regarded as a singular voter. This “outreach to delegates” activity is how we got to this very moment in time whereby we’re consistently talking about making concessions for delegates thus placing them above the common voter. And the reason that it’s gotten out of hand is due to the very nature of Web3 whereby it’s usually a power struggle, coupled with the “get rich quick” mentality and schemes that tend to have people doing all sorts of shady things behind the scenes. And so, with voting delegations, we find ourselves in that very same pool whereby authors have to now go around campaigning to delegations in a bid to get their proposals passed - not based on merits, but based on the feelz of delegations with large wallets.
Even within the context of investments, even with a deck, you still end up doing your pitch to investors to get your project funded. And there are several factors that go into that exercise because that’s how that works. That’s not how it should work in a grants DAO - especially one that has a community face. If this was ever a thing in crowd-funding, it would never - ever - work because the outcry would be substantial to say the least. I believe you already know this.
I personally will never - ever - go find delegates to vote for my proposals. Ever. The onus shouldn’t have to be on me - especially not after spending time and effort writing up a proposal. My role is to put up a proposal and let the community decide its fate based on merit and their confidence that I am qualified and up to the task. That’s it. And unlike others who breezed through here, regardless of the disposition of their proposals, I am still here doing what I can for the DAO because some of us grew up selfless, and so, we tend to find ways for everyone to prosper - together. And that effort starts from within, and it should primarily be about what we can do for the DAO, not what it can do for us.
We keep asking for builders to come here, to the DAO, with their proposals; and yet, here we are laying out the law of the land that most people of sound mind and body would take one look at and subsequently nope the hell out.
Nobody wants to say the quiet part out loud, but the fact is that this, and many other activities here in the community, are the primary reasons why engagement is low, outsiders show up, throw up a proposal, and win or lose, a large percentage never come back.
We need to STOP this activity forthwith because it’s absolutely counterproductive and it’s not a good look - at all.
That’s not conducive to a streamlined or expedited process. How many builders do you think would want to come here just to run a 4-5 week gauntlet without any guarantee of success? With ApeChain on the way, I can say this with utmost confidence, if we don’t streamline the DAO process, the chain WILL fail. And that’s got nothing to do with a $100M magic bullet budget. And anyone who thinks that’s all that it’s going to take, is just being ignorant.
When I returned two weeks ago, I carefully crafted a series of proposals listed in my The DAO - The Road Ahead topic. Most were all designed to streamline the DAO ops in the context of expediency and efficiency, while others were for transparency and accountability because those are the things that should matter.
And so, in my rejected proposal (some posts above), I opted for both efficiency and expediency from a project management perspective. And if Lost doesn’t think that those fit into his proposal, I will obviously write up my own with what I believe his proposal is lacking.
And so, we need to restore and keep the voting cadence to 7 days. The grant payout process is a different issue entirely, hence the reason that I wrote the Require Ape Foundation To Disburse AIP Funds In Timely Fashion proposal to address that aspect because, regardless of the reasons, it’s completely ridiculous that people would be waiting months on end to get funds that a DAO has already approved for disbursement.
The DAO is already a lumbering, inefficient, and largely failed experiment. And so, adding even more obstacles isn’t going to fix that.
That’s a solution looking for a problem. For example, ApeComms does a good job of inviting authors to go on Spaces to talk about their proposals - just like a writer, actor, singer etc. would do when they go talk to media about their projects. And ApeComms did this when it was a 7 and 14 day voting cadence. If delegations are efficient in their ops, I don’t see how, within a span of 7 days, they couldn’t reach out to authors to schedule an audience.
We’re not going to be able to “decentralize and expand the ecosystem” by creating undue burdens and stress on builders. Sure, you may be able to impose those on authors who are otherwise desperate or who have large enough teams to assign to marketing and such activities etc. But I can tell you, with completely certainty, that we’re never - ever - going to attract the kind of [talented] builders that we need by creating undue burdens and roadblocks because, guess what, most serious builders absolutely do not need grants nor the DAO for anything. In case that wasn’t already obvious, I invite you to take a close look at our engagement as well as the quality and number of proposals. There’s your answer.