I would rather not usurp the premise of your AIP because I believe that yours is headed in the right direction. And the whole impetus for mine (which I will now deprecate) was to augment yours. To that end, I am always happy to have further discussions to see where this lands ahead of admin review.
As you can see, my points (rescued from the rejected proposal) above were designed to find the sweet spot between 14-day and 7-day cycles, while providing AIP authors with ample time, while also giving both authors and the community an insight into the state of proposals when they go into admin review.
It also prevents the glut of AIPs by giving the GwG a fixed and consistent number of proposals to focus on at any one time, and which will further prevent backlogs while also giving the voters a smaller (and fixed) number of proposals to review while voting is active.
The whole premise here is that, with ApeChain playing catch-up, a lot of our processes need to be streamlined for efficiency, expediency, and stability (can’t keep writing proposals which seek to deprecate what came before).
For completeness and for the benefit of those who didn’t see it, below are key excerpts from my rejected proposal.
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
With the advent of ApeChain and the $100M Banana Bill, both of which are designed to spur ecosystem growth, it is important that the DAO act swiftly and efficiently to move proposals forward and to vote.
Last year, in a bid to give voters and delegates more time to adequately campaign for their proposals, AIP-362 changed the weekly voting schedule to a bi-monthly schedule.
Despite the good intentions of AIP-362, the adverse effect has been a longer voting process. And from my analysis of the proposals between Oct 2023 - June 2024, there was neither an uptick in Discourse discussion of proposals nor did it have any effect on the frequency or number of proposals going up to vote on Snapshot.
In fact, there is currently no empirical evidence to suggest that AIP-362 made the process any better - other than perhaps a lighter workload due to the extended time given between voting.
This proposal aims to restore the prior weekly voting schedule, while, as a counter-balance, adding a layer of flexibility for the GwG in their process for sending proposals to Snapshot.
This proposal will also remove the mandatory 7 day ideas period and allow proposals to go directly into AIP draft mode, thus speeding up the process.
BENEFIT TO APECOIN ECOSYSTEM
The frequency and count of proposals going to vote ensures that proposals are handled with more frequency and accuracy, while still allowing ample time for discussions and campaigning (if authors show choose).
This proposal also ensures that the GwG are able to focus on a specific number of proposals based on a FIFO (First In / First Out) fashion while retaining an efficient voting cycle.
STEPS TO IMPLEMENT
Upon this proposal passing:
The “AIP Ideas” phase of Discourse proposals is to be optional. This allows authors wishing to go straight to “AIP Draft” to be able to do so. This will require the creation of Discourse topics within the “AIP Draft” Discourse template, which is currently not allowed.
Proposals will adhere to a 7-day voting cadence. This means that proposals will be up for vote for a period of 7 days.
The voting term/period is to be Tuesday of each month, and will run for 7 days (Tues - Mon) thereof.
Proposals that are ready to go to vote, will be posted on Snapshot within 3 days of the vote going live. Such proposals will have a “Pending” status. To wit, with voting every Tuesday, the proposals must be up on Snapshot the Fri prior.
Regardless of the number of proposals in the queue, the GwG will focus on the 5 most recent proposals which have since passed admin review, and as such, are ready to go up on Snapshot. This means that at no time should there be more than 5 proposals up for vote. And in the event that there are less than 5 ready for vote, then all such proposals are deemed eligible.
The GwG will create a Discourse forum thread entitled “Proposals Status Schedule” with a link to an AirTable (similar to this) which outlines the current status of all proposals, and sorted in a manner that shows the DAO which proposals are ready to be in the voting queue. The following data is required in the table:
.
| AIP Number | Admin Review Date | Snapshot Date | Status (Pending/Active/Closed) |
.
e.g.
| AIP-1 | 01/01/2025 | 01/10/2025 | Pending |
So if I’m reading these replies correctly - Lost rejected your AIP idea because it was similar to his own idea? And the reason given was that it would have been in breach of the 3 month conflict rule? Makes no sense as would mean we can never discuss in that period . Can someone clarify what happened here as it seems odd yet not surprising. Thanks.
We need more automation and less centralised control as the process is easily manipulated.
Yeah, I was puzzled as well, but didn’t press it because I figured that as this has some aspects of 451 overlapped with mine, that it couldn’t be approved. I could have revised it to remove the overlaps, but felt that 451 would go up before mine anyway; and thus I decided to see if Lost would consider my additions in the interest of time.
"Thank you for your AIP submission. As many of these proposed tenets have already been suggested by AIP-451, this Idea was rejected based upon Guideline #4 of AIP-1"
I am still puzzled as to why an idea would be rejected even though it doesn’t conflict with a passed AIP - which 451 isn’t. I looked at AIP-1 and didn’t find the answer there because it seems to apply to passed AIP and not ideas. If we applied the rule to ideas under discussion, then as you said, that means we can’t have or discuss similar ideas even though they aren’t passed AIPs. Hopefully the @Facilitators can shed some light here.
This Guideline was invoked given that your proposal contains several points directly proposed by AIP-451. With respect to #1 you’ve included above (which is Guideline #5 in AIP-1, immediately following the Guideline #4 I’ve just referenced), this tends to be invoked when a principle tenet of a proposal would “conflict” with what another would establish, not propose the same points.
For example, AIP-436 calls for a 2/3s vote for allocations over $500k; AIP-445 calls for a 3/4s vote for all allocations over $150k. 445 would “conflict” with 436 if 436 were to pass, but does not propose the exact same idea. This is where Guideline #4 comes in.
Remember this is important.
My AIP was closed for some time and did not know how to edit post or reply to it. It has to go through one of the processes to open back up.
That makes sense. Thanks for the clarity. I did actually see that when I first read 451, but I missed the “ideas” part as I was focused on the 2 points that I listed above.
I think this is a bad idea as it means delegations will only get approx. 4 days to vote.
They close their voting earlier as they then need to manually vote and 2 days leaves time for timezone issues (both when they add them on their snapshots and when they cast their delegations choices on ApeCoin.eth).
It also puts unnecessary management burden on delegations, hence will negatively impact growing new delegations.
It will benefit representative delegations where one person has been trusted to vote on others behalf at the expense of more decentralized delegations.
The most common feedback we hear on our weekly Saturday 10 AM EST X space dedicated to DAOs and AIPs is that authors only get 1 or 2 days’ notice from ApeCoin DAO if their AIP is approved and goes live for voting. This short notice prevents quick manipulation by buying votes but gives authors just 9 days to campaign for necessary votes if the voting time is reduced to 7 days.
This likely affects smaller AIPs that need more time. From my experience in crowdfunding, where I’ve raised millions for smaller game developers, campaigns should ideally take 32 days. While that’s not ideal for web3, extending AIP voting to 3 weeks and reducing the grant allocation time to 7 days could work. The focus should be on shortening the grant payout time, not the voting period.
From a delegation standpoint, having only 4-5 days to inform the community isn’t enough. For instance, BOTB’s weekly Saturday 10 AM EST spaces wouldn’t have enough time to invite authors and create a platform for discussion. This could negatively impact smaller delegates.
If the goal is to decentralize and expand the ecosystem, reducing the voting time isn’t the best approach. Curious to hear your feedback, Derek.
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.
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.
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.
UTC is a good idea, as we are global and EST is very US Centric and also not always the timezone of the Cayman Islands (timezone)
So all year, Cayman has the same time, -5 hours Coordinated Universal time (UTC). This means the Islands share Eastern Standard Time (EST= -5 UTC) with Miami and New York from November through April.
Secondly, I think you should make clear that you are a Facilitator in the Facilitator Initiative of the GWG. See AIP-408. As you have this omission in your introduction.
Thirdly, I agree @VonFrontin delegations will have maybe only 4 days in this new process. As the delegation needs time to actually create their snapshot, which has delays due to global timezones. Also delegations need to close earlier, so they can have time to vote on the main apecoin.eth snapshot.
This view is also shared here:
Finally, @BoredApeG very much agree to all the great points you made.
I don’t see how “global timezones” affects a 4 day turnaround. And if a delegation can’t get a snapshot up and running within 24 hrs of it being posted on ApeCoin snapshot, that’s a different problem that’s unrelated to time zone differentials.
Don’t even get me started…
I have nothing against delegates or delegations, but they shouldn’t use the voting process to promote their Spaces nor to wield power.
Literally nobody cares if an AIP author shows up on Spaces or not because that’s not how votes are determined. But authors do it anyway because they feel as if they don’t have a choice. And that very same act is why there’s so much pressure on authors to make the cattle runs to delegates and delegations in a bid to trump up support for their proposals.
Proposals should stand on their own merits, and delegates shouldn’t have to speak with authors while tying that to the voting process. Just go read the proposal, then vote on its merits. That’s it. But hey, it’s Web3 - and we’re all whack.
Even as I type this, I am in discussions with a proposal author who is terribly concerned that there’s “no way to reach Mocaverse to get their votes”. I told him not to bother because our Moca frens tend to vote like children who Animoca gave a loaded weapon to. Meaning, they’re hilariously unpredictable af.
That’s what’s happening. Right now. And it’s been going on for quite some time now - unabated. It needs to stop.
While I too agree with @BoredApeG, I feel that we’re all discussing a completely different problem that’s seemingly unrelated to time zones and is more about efficiency.
ps. If the delegations succeed in killing this proposal because of this time zone and time limit issue, and so, we retain the status quo, I would quite literally die laughing as that would be like throwing out the baby with the bath water because this proposal is so much more than that transient issue.
I believe that’s a great idea. Not sure how it solves the time zone and timing concerns, though. Perhaps the Tally is a temp check which determines whether or not the proposal goes to Snapshot? Or the other way around. If so, I see how that can actually kill two [time-related] birds with one stone. I look forward to reading the proposal.
. Can someone clarify what happened here as it seems odd yet not surprising. Thanks.