I agree. I will split them into two AIPs. I will leave this one for the leadership requirements, and create a new one for the budget/term limits.
1 Like
@SmartAPE welcome back. There are some good points, a few concerns:
-
I would add is that we should promote 7 months before the election on the official x account, so people know to register if they want to run approximately 6 months later. I also donât know if 6 months is the key point, I mean you can make an account and do nothing. Also there are people who may vote directly or be part of a delegation who are familiar with the ApeCoin Dao. 2 months in the Dao should be enough.
-
You are asking people not just to KYC but to doxx themselves to apply. I think clear AIPs is far more important than doxxing. Every rug pull project I was in was from doxxed founders. Perhaps sharing their x, profile in the forum and their associated web3 branded wallet should be enough.
-
Regarding reaching level 2, I agree it should be a hard minimum requirement.
The requirements are below:
Trust Level 2 â Member
Members keep coming back to your community over a series of weeks; they have not only read, but actively participated long and consistently enough to be trusted with full citizenship.
Get to trust level 2 byâŚ
- Visiting at least 15 days, not sequentially
- Casting at least 1 like
- Receiving at least 1 like
- Replying to at least 3 different topics
- Entering at least 20 topics
- Reading at least 100 posts
- Spend a total of 60 minutes reading posts
It can be achieved in 1 month. It really should be the base minimum.
-
@SmartAPE I like AIPs split on a granular level. Budget and who is eligible for elections are two separate topics.
-
I also like the fixed costs, including the Stewards compensation and other fixed costs like LLC renewal fees etc being on a 12 month budget.
Variable costs and Initiatives (which are variable costs) should be able to be added and subtracted in AIPs during the year.
Regarding @furiousanger comment about talent, certain tasks and people who do those tasks, are not suitable for an election process and should just be contractors within working groups, with the Stewards empowered to hire such contractors, on terms which are competitive to have the right people for the role.
The question should be do we want X initiative under Y working group for Z budget? If the DAO says yes, then the Stewards go to find the people to implement it.
1 Like
I have now created a new proposal âAlignment Of Working Group Terms And Budgetsâ. Once it goes live, I will reference (via links) the relevant budget comments which were previously made in this current proposal.
I ask that future comments in this proposal be restricted to the discussions of candidate requirements.
Thanks!
Thanks! It feels great to be back.
Funny that you mention âpromotionâ because thatâs one of the things I have on my todo list to address as per MarComms. But thatâs a different topic.
Personally, I donât believe that the DAO should be promoting things like elections because not only does it send the wrong message and optics, but it also tends to attract the wrong kind of attention, while attracting candidates who are otherwise oblivious to our small corner of the Internet; and thus giving attention to said candidates who arenât an active part of our DAO.
As all are aware, I am a very strong supporter of the DAO âtaking care of its own, and being run by its ownâ. There should be no compromise in this regard otherwise we might as well start putting up job offers on Indeed and similar job sites.
For too long - over two years to be exact - dedicated DAO community members have failed to benefit from the DAO that was created specifically for them. And not even ThankApe, with all their effectiveness, can seek to address the needs and interests of the collective members. Especially given that ThankApe isnât on the high-end cluster of activities and budgets which would attract a different level and caliber of ape builders. e.g. itâs why, despite my misgivings and concerns about it, I believe that, if handled correctly, the Banana Bill is likely to address the higher echelon of ape builders who otherwise find ThankApe restrictive and/or inadequate for their goals.
We must cater to all ape builders, big and small. And that starts from focusing on those who show up every day - regardless of whether or not they want something. Itâs saddening to see outsiders - with no experience or insight into our community - continue to benefit while our won frens continue to look on. e.g. the $5M F1 sponsorship which, as ineffective as it was, can be relegated to the realms of âmarketingâ. It did nothing. The token price (which I tracked since that period) continued to slide unabetted. Imagine what $5M (higher than ThankApeâs recent $4M grant) would have done for the so many worthy ape builders who come through here.
Heck, as you well know, last year, I had a $2M all-inclusive AIP-316 which would have hired (and paid) our frens from this community while helping to build a community game, made them a part of it etc. Even after I reduced it to a mere $500K marketing spend, it still failed. And even after that, until my Oct temp-ban, I still showed up. I participate. I communicate. I help. I mentor. I share. And amid all that, I still try - in my own whacky ways - to hold our leadership accountable and to call them out when nobody else dared to.
To be clear, I am not complaining here; I am just using myself, an indie ape builder, as an example of those of us who, regardless of loss or gain, still show up - only to see others, outside of our ecosystem and community, continue to claim and gain what was supposed to be for this DAO community. And that sort of thing is what breeds mistrust, angst, despair - and lack of confidence in our DAO. And that are some reasons why our community participation and turnout continues to decline.
In a span of two years - and Iâve been here since June 2023 - weâve seemingly gained nothing tangible, while doling out treasure funds amid a rapidly declining token and treasury. And itâs always someone elseâs problem. And so, if we donât start plugging these leadership and process holes, the end result is that ApeChain is likely to fail in the long run. It is OUR collective problem - and we MUST fix it.
We absolutely must be selfish here, and seek to move our own tribe forward. And to do that, we need effective people and processes in place. That all starts with electing the qualified and experienced people who are ALSO are familiar with our DAO and its eclectic community.
Indeed. tbh, I was hesitant to make it TL3 because I felt that it was too restrictive, while not having any additional participation related benefits over TL2. That said, I am open to suggestions on how we can augment this TL2 requirement with other requirements which canât be âgamedâ or âfarmedâ like the trust levels can. The goal is to attract candidates who are active in the community, and are thus familiar with it.
I believe that the new AIP which I just submitted takes these into account. And if not, when that goes up, we can review and go from there.
I agree. And itâs the impetus for my upcoming AIP to dissolve ALL Working Groups other than the GwG. We donât need all these WGs which, thus far, imo have been completely and utterly ineffective.
We must streamline the DAO ops and build an efficient machine. To that end, my primary concern - even as I type this - is that legacy GwG stewards who are already familiar with the DAO, the community, the drama, and all the craziness that comes with the territory, are due to be rotated out of their 2 year terms. That, in and of itself, is a serious problem that I donât see anyone actually talking about. Itâs one of the primary reasons that, my misgivings and wailing against the SC aside, I campaigned for Waabam to retain his seat - and I explained why I did so, We have to fix that too. And I am working on an AIP to increase the terms to 4 years - and with no elections in between. We have to cease this ineffective madness. We can do better. And we MUST because clearly the status quo isnât working as expected, and instead has created far too many distractions.
We want the GwG to be able to hire the best teams and companies for the job. We donât need all these [ineffective] working groups. If we can hire attorneys, accountants etc. we can very well hire marketing specialists, bizdev analysts etc. They are fixed and predictive costs, and which also come with accountability, KPIs etc. A firm doesnât work out, we fire them and hire someone else.
2 Likes
OK. The new proposal is now up. Alignment Of Working Group Terms And Budgets
Please review that other proposal to see some of the recent comments related to these budgets and terms.
Also, instead of making subsequent revisions, I will continue to take any/all feedback into account, while acknowledging those which I deem to be worthy of addition/revision and which are pertinent to the proposal. Then, before the end of the 7-day period, I will update the original proposal to reflect any/all changes that I made as part of this discussion.
2 Likes
Totally get the thinking here, and not to take anything away from the gist or significance of properly understanding ApeCoin DAO, but I will add that itâs critical to recognize there is far more to being a Special Council Member and/or Working Group Steward than oneâs time spent or engagement on Discourse, which is why you donât see an excessive amount of posts from most of us. And on a personal level, anything more from me would show signs of deficiencies in my core duties as a Steward â which will never happen.
Important to view Working Groups as similar to startups where there are many moving parts, requiring the wearing of many hats, so time can be very thin.
That being said, I recognize that the proposal refers to time spent on Discourse pre-election, but it is important to note that there are many good candidates we could miss out on if weâre not careful, who may already be in positions which donât allow for high levels of online engagement.
Nonetheless, I see what youâre saying with this @SmartAPE 
AC
2 Likes
Agreed. My proposal was not designed to, in no way, shape or form, opine on the activities of neither the Special Council nor the GwG. I reviewed it again, and I am puzzled as to why you thought this was implied. Am I missing something?
The sole purpose of this AIP is as was originally written, in that we need balance and consistency in these roles. In fact, in the past 24 hrs, I have written no less than 7 (with 4 more to come) detailed and comprehensive AIPs designed to complement each other in this pursuit.
Agreed. And I do. I have written those very statements many times. If you like, I can post all my missives, here and on X, where I have specifically referred to the DAO as a âstartupâ, and which has all the associated growing pains.
Agreed. As I mentioned earlier, I couldnât think of any other way in which to vet the participation of qualified and experienced individuals. Itâs why I asked for other suggestions because, in truth, even the TL2 status can be gamed - with ease. I am, and remain, open to suggestions - but this is a hole that we absolutely have to plug, somehow.
I have updated my response, given you made major alterations to the Idea draft. It could give the impression people support your new version, when they donât.
Finally, if you are called John Smith or something similar it is less of an ask, compared to having a name like Jeff Bezos.
Also it is good to look at what other DAOs require. FYI ENS token increased 200% in the last 12 months.
Note that Doxxing is not a requirement. Also a reminder to all readers, all ApeCoin elected roles (Special Council and Stewards) are KYCed and this is not the same as Doxxing.
By âpeopleâ you mean, you though, right?
As to the changes, unless and until they are ready to go to vote, proposals - especially those in the idea phase - are almost always work-in-progress. Itâs why theyâre called âideasâ. I had an idea; and like all ideas, itâs a living premise that is subject to changes - even through to admin review.
Also, I didnât make any major changes to the idea. The Discourse diff doesnât understand change context like dedicated tools (BeyondCompare, WinMerge et al). So, thatâs why it looks like there are more changes than there really are. But I only did the following:
- added a new item as #1
- added a new item as #2
- added an image to explain the new item
If someone no longer supports a proposal idea because of changes to it, thatâs OK. And so, they can very well change their Discourse vote. And then, if such changes survive admin review and goes to vote, they can very well not vote for the proposal. Thatâs how it works - and how it should work.
Asking people for their real names in a high profile role within a multi-million Dollar entity isnât doxxing. How is it that we expect people writing up AIPs to identify themselves, teams etc. before we give them a single Dollar; but when it comes to the same premise in electing leaders, itâs âOMG! Itâs doxxing!â
And itâs completely irrelevant that rug pull projects are from doxxed founders. However, by the same token, there are thousands of companies that fail from doxxed founders - and theyâre not rug pulls.
Knowing who the leadership people are is important to the premise of transparency and accountability. I have always said this, and thereâs no circumstance under which this will change.
You can call yourself John Doe if you want; because the point is that anyone wanting a leadership role has an obligation to identify themselves to the community.
Not sure how thatâs relevant. An ENS name (I actually have two) has nothing to do with leadership having to identify themselves. Itâs no different from me being SmartApe here, and Derek Smart at the same time. The context is that those who donât know who is being SmartApe, can very well look it up - and vice versa.
I believe that you are conflating anonymity with disclosure requirements.
Thatâs incorrect - in its entirety. Sure, the Ape Foundation informs the community that itâs members are all KYCed. Thatâs got nothing to do with the community being aware of who those people are.
Hi @SmartAPE ,
The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in less than 24 hours.
- If youâre content with the feedback received, your next steps are to finalize your proposal using the AIP Draft Template.
- A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft. Upon receipt of the final Draft, we will review and provide instructions on the next steps.
- Are you ready to proceed to the next phase or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?
We look forward to hearing from you.
I am ready to proceed. Thanks!
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
Hi @SmartAPE ,
Thank you for your ideas [and the ApeCoin DAO community for the insightful discussions].
A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft using the appropriate template.
- Once the AIP Draft is confirmed by the author and meets all DAO-approved guidelines, it will receive an AIP ID number and move forward for Draft Analysis Review.
- @SmartAPE please see your messages for the next steps.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments. In accordance with DAO-approved guidelines, if the author does not respond within 30 days, the proposal will be automatically transferred to the Withdrawn category, and the author can re-submit the idea.
1 Like
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
@SmartAPE has completed editing their AIP Idea to be their AIP Draft.
This proposal has been assigned the AIP ID Number 464.
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 @SmartAPE '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,
1 Like
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
@SmartAPE has responded to our questions and they are in our review once again.
Edits have been made to this Topic, by the author, by the authorâs request, or with the authorâs 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,
1 Like
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
We have no further questions for @SmartAPE . This AIP is now under Administrative Review.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.
Kind Regards,
1 Like
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
@SmartAPE has requested to withdraw their application. This AIP will be moved to and remain in the Withdrawn AIPs category.
Kind Regards,