AIP-466: Proposal To Close Non-Essential Working Groups

[12GAUGE.Admin]

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,

-@Facilitators

[12GAUGE.Admin]

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@SmartAPE has responded to our questions and they are in our review.

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

Kind Regards,

-@Facilitators

[12GAUGE.Admin]

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

Edits have been made to this Topic 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

[12GAUGE.Admin]

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,

-@Facilitators

[12GAUGE.Admin]

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

This AIP Idea was tagged as “Needs Administrative Review” and sent to the Special Council. Upon careful review, the proposal has been deemed “Return for Reconstruction”. In doing so, the Special Council cited:

• Could you please resubmit this proposal as individual proposals for each specific Working Group, referencing the charter for each one?
• Please remove any references to clawbacks from the resubmissions.

We thank the author for their participation and encourage everyone to continue sharing ideas with the ApeCoin DAO Community.

This Topic will be moved to and remain in the Withdrawn AIPs - Returned for Reconstruction category. The author may resubmit their proposal if they wish.

-@Facilitators

[12GAUGE.Admin]

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

Upon further review, this AIP’s “Return for Reconstruction” designation has been revoked and will resume the AIP process. In doing so the Special Council cited the following reasons:

“Upon further reflection, if the author can please reference the charter for each WG, and remove any references to clawbacks, this AIP can return to administrative review, while including all of the working groups.”

Kind Regards,

-@Facilitators

[DIM]

Full support on this AIP. I will publish next week a transparency report on the Metaverse Working Group activities and treasury.

[SmartAPE]

[SmartAPE]

In the spirit of transparency:

Note that though the graphic in the proposal shows the facilitators under the GwG hierarchy, unlike the secretary, they are apparently neither under the GwG nor beholden to it. And so, being separate entities, they are unaffected by this proposal to close the GwG. I didn’t know this until early this morning. Imagine my surprise. And I am all but certain that some of you here in the DAO didn’t know this either.

OVERSIGHT CHAIR ROLE

---

I mention the above issue with the facilitators because I had previously expressed concern about the vacuum which would be left behind as a result of the successful closing of all 4 working groups. If you recall, the original AIP-466 only closed the 3 working groups, thereby leaving the GwG alone. Recent events prompted the inclusion of this group in a bid to just burn it all down and move forward with another experiment. We tried this. It didn’t work. We try something else.

And so, in my original revision to this AIP-466 yesterday after I had received some guidance from others, I created a [non-salaried] Oversight Chair role - with me at the helm. I had hinted at such a role yesterday. Ref: Resignation from ApeCoin DAO Secretary Position

The idea behind this role was that we can’t just tear it all down and not have something in place to fix what came before. And we can’t go back and solicit the same usual suspects who are likely to retain the [failed] status quo. Further, I only trusted myself and very few others in the DAO, to take on this responsibility, without fear or favor while also adhering to accepted standards of transparency and accountability.

And so, the role, working in cooperation with the Ape Foundation, would work on the restructuring of the DAO, implement policies and processes which would ensure that we build back better, with fiscal responsibility, as well as transparency and accountability being paramount. It would also act a bridge from the lower decks to the upper management overlords so to speak.

The role was also to serve as a conduit between the DAO community (us plebs in the lower decks) and the DAO leadership such that we could alleviate the consistent complains about leadership either being absentee landlords, highly paid “no show” grifters or seemingly ignoring the DAO community that’s actually paying them for their participation in those roles.

In addition, as part of the guidance for the role, I had planned to hold weekly video town halls whereby any/all issues in the community could be addressed - even without the participation of the Ape Foundation; and to that end, I would make fair and unbiased recommendations to the Ape Foundation, leaving it up to them to either adhere to or ignore them.

As I had never been in a leadership role in the DAO, nor engaged in behind-the-scenes power play shenanigans, I was confident that I wouldn’t run the risk of being accused of engaging in a conflict of interest similar to the whole 0xPolygon / Gerry or Banana Bill / CapTrippy role transitions. I actually discussed this very premise in a one hour podcast which I was in last week. Ref: SANDDAO Podcast 25 With SmartApe .

I later removed this Oversight Chair role requirement when I was later advised that:

1. The facilitators are unaffected by the closure of the GwG.

2. The Ape Foundation already has other plans in place that would - hopefully - address the on-going concerns, and may be in conflict with the creation of such a role.

180 DAY HALT TO ANY/ALL FUNDING PROGRAMS

---

I had also included an item which would have halted any/all funding for new proposals for a period of 180 days following the date of the proposal passing.

I removed this as well because I was advised that it could have the side effect of discouraging people from submitting proposals.

To be clear, this issue still concerns me because people could write all the proposals that they want, but if the DAO has no money to fund them, then what? I guess we’ll find out soon enough. And I’m not even joking about that part. REF: Ape Foundation Transparency Report - 2024 - Q1

ADDENDUM

---

For those of you who aren’t keeping up. Below is the timeline of the necromancing of AIP-466.

JUNE 20th

The original AIP-466 to close all 3 working groups was published.

JULY 5th

I receive the first set of admin review questions. For some reason, they are not in this thread. I will post them below for context.

---

Upon the team’s review and discussion, please find the list of our initial questions as below.

1. Is the Ape Foundation expected to engage in any of the steps of the AIP implementation? If so, please specify the steps and elaborate on how it is expected to work.

I believe that this is already covered in the STEPS TO IMPLEMENT section. Everything in that section would be implemented by the Ape Foundation.

2. Please update the Overall Cost to represent this proposal’s maximum potential financial impact.

Not sure that I understand the request; but I will try to add some clarity.

The financial impact would be to the people in the Working Group being paid with 30-day notice. For example, if the Working Group was closed sometime in July, then the team would be paid for July + Aug (the following month).

3. Please update your Proposal Description to include a summary of the specific details outlined in your Steps to Implement section.

I believe that each item in that section is already detailed. Was there something missing?

4. Please update your Steps To Implement to include any milestones, key performance indicators, and any associated costs including the $500k USD yearly maximum earmarked for third-party contractors.

I don’t see a $500K entry in the proposal.

5. Your proposal outlines a process in which the “Governance Working Group and SC will collectively manage and co-ordinate the consulting and hiring of any third-parties required for these activities.” Please provide proof of consent from the Governance Working Group and Special Council, and their willingness to cooperate in the implementation of this proposal, or alternatively, the proposal will be Rejected for violating the community guidelines.

As the Special Council is an advisory board that operates at the behest of the DAO, I don’t believe that a DAO member requires their consent to perform any request. Perhaps they can shed some light on why a request by a DAO member - and which is subject to a DAO vote - requires such a consent.

6. The Working Group budgets mentioned in the Abstract are yearly estimates based on an approved 6-month budget. Please update your Abstract to more accurately reflect this.

I am unable to edit the proposal. To that end, please make this change:

From this:

“The current budgets of the aforementioned working groups are as follows:”

To this:

“The current yearly budgets based on an approved 6-month budget of the aforementioned working groups are as follows:”

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

Yes

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

Yes

---

SEPT 3rd

I received notification that my AIP had to be split into three parts.

---

Your AIP Idea was tagged as “Needs Administrative Review” and sent to the Special Council. Upon careful review, the proposal has been deemed “Return for Reconstruction”. In doing so, the Special Council cited the following:

• Could you please resubmit this proposal as individual proposals for each specific Working Group, referencing the charter for each one?

• Please remove any references to clawbacks from the resubmissions.

• We encourage you to explore the Resubmission process, using the AIP Draft Resubmission Template as a resource.

• AIP Resubmission authors have the option to forgo the standard 7-day AIP Idea phase and may request to enter directly into the AIP Draft phase.

---

SEPT 7th

No pressure. So, I did as requested.

AIP-522: Dissolve The Metaverse Working Group
AIP-523: Dissolve The Web3 Development Working Group
AIP-528: Dissolve The Marketing & Communications Working Group

SEPT 24th

In light of the on-going furor regarding the resignation of the DAO secretary and the furor that ensued, I received notification that the SC had gone back and reviewed AIP-466 and reversed the earlier decision.

---

I have an update regarding this proposal. Special Council has noted, “Upon further reflection, If you could please reference the charter for each WG, and remove any references to clawbacks, this AIP can return to administrative review, while including all of the working groups.”

May I assist you with these edits and move this proposal back to Administrative Review?

---

Incidentally, that decision was part of their guidance released yesterday explaining how this process would work going forward. Ref: Regarding the Status of Returned Proposals

SEPT 24th

Later came additional guidance following a query that I had previously sent regarding the necromancing of AIP-466.

---

Updating the previous communication, there is presently not a process for “reopening” an AIP that has been Returned for Reconstruction.

However, we ask you to resubmit the AIP regarding this following note from the Special Council:

“Upon further reflection, if the author can please reference the charter for each WG, and remove any references to clawbacks, this AIP can return to the AIP process, while including all of the Working Groups.”

Should you resubmit your AIP with these stipulations included, we would be happy to forego the seven-day community feedback period, and move directly to Drafts.

We thank you for your commitment to improving our DAO and its processes, and look forward to hearing from you.

---

SEPT 25th

I replaced the contents of the original AIP-466 with parts from the other three prior proposals, while also including the GwG, removing funding claw backs, costs etc. as per guidance received.

And so came to pass the new revision of AIP-466.

Now you’re all caught up.

[furiousanger]

Let’s just get on with it.

Fully support.

[SmartAPE]

I know that you had some questions/concerns about the “The DAO immediately saves money.” part of the proposal. Happy to respond to that here in more detail.

[penguinpecker]

Seems like a no brainer. Also, do we really need 5 special council members👀

[furiousanger]

Sure. I have lots of issues with it tbf. But was happy to just see it done. Anyway, obliging your request let’s start with:

@SmartAPE

The DAO immediately saves money

This is a false claim. There’s no need for it. In fact there’s no need for most of the words within the AIP. Would be much better to just make it simple instead of adding in all the additional words & claims imo.

So you may realise some returned unspent funds (recoup), but they were already approved AIP grants, so this is not a saving.

Each future WG budget would have had to be approved by a community vote.

So technically all you are saving the DAO from is having to vote on said budgets, and that’s/they’re not even “immediately”.

All I would ask is let’s just keep this AIP simple and what it is - a proposal to close all the working groups and to stop working group AIPs from being proposed for three months - it’s not a money saving exercise, bc as I explained the costs are not ongoing and you cannot predict future WG budget vote outcomes.

Thanks.

[SmartAPE]

@furiousanger

This is a false claim.

Please explain in as few words as possible what is “false” about it.

@furiousanger

In fact there’s no need for most of the words within the AIP. Would be much better to just make it simple instead of adding in all the additional words & claims imo.

That’s subjective. The proposal is crystal clear and is designed to avoid ambiguity. If you believe that it has too many words, that’s your opinion, and you’re welcome to have it. As an engineer and someone who writes at lot - including technical data - I find value in clarity and candor.

@furiousanger

So you may realise some returned/unspent funds (recoup), but they were already approved AIP grants, so this is not a saving.

Each future WG budget would have had to be approved by a community vote.

So technically all you are saving the DAO from is having to vote on said budgets, and that’s/they’re not even “immediately”.

Literally none of that is relevant.

All budgets, regardless of how they are received and/or allocated, are subject to a line item entry on a P&L. This is standard practice - and it’s not rocket science.

The proposal - if it passes - will cut 10 jobs. That [voted] budgets were already allocated to those payments, is immaterial and irrelevant. What’s relevant is that, if this passes, those payments will no longer exist.

Setting aside the fact that in the history of the DAO not once has a WG budget failed to pass, it stands to reason that a dissolved WG that no longer has to submit a budget of ops, does in fact save the DAO money. Look up “projections” as it pertains to accounting & financial practices.

That the budgets were already passed and approved is also immaterial and irrelevant because if this proposal passes and those jobs are eliminated, and salaries/expenses paid out, the residual balance is returned to the DAO treasury. They don’t get to keep the money just because a budget was allocated and they didn’t spend it before their positions were eliminated. It doesn’t work like that. At least I bloody well hope not.

When companies talk about cutting jobs, they always project what they are “saving” by taking that action. That you’re suggesting because it’s not immediate and/or because a budget was already voted on and passed so somehow it’s not “immediate” is a completely ridiculous argument to make - and I look forward to explaining it further if you choose to retain this line of argument.

In conclusion:

1. Loss of jobs means savings of not funding/budgeting those positions in the future
2. Residual balances - if any - for an allocated budget that is unspent due to job loss, is a savings either by those residual balances (if any) being returned/appropriated or the scenario as per #1 becomes an implicit inference in that if all the funds were spent as per #1, then #2 will not apply.

I hope this brings some clarity to whatever it is you’re struggling to understand and reconcile.

[likkee.eth]

@SmartAPE

The Ape Foundation already has other plans in place that would

Btw, who are the APE Foundation?

AIP-466 doesn’t include SC? Tot get rid of everything…

[furiousanger]

I’ll try quickly explain but I’m pretty busy today so not going to go backwards and forwards on this tbh.

WG budgets have to be approved by community votes - future actions.

Previous WG budgets have already been paid from the treasury, past tense.

You may recoup/recover nominal amounts from my understanding, by unpaid compensation being returned; these however are not savings.

You then propose RFPs to replace activities & work previously competed by the WGs.

RFPs are multiple choice (usually presented with no opt outs).

Conclusion:

This AIP is not saving any money whatsoever; today WGs cost the treasury ZERO with no future costs assured as further budgets have not been approved. I would also argue that WG budgets (after recent developments and revelations), would never again pass a vote/be community approved.

In fact what you both will make sure of if this AIP is approved is that indefinitely year after year these changes will cost us money - by removing the choice to fund these costly activities by voting; instead replacing with multiple choice RFPs - forever creating ongoing costs like we enjoy with special council, administrators & coinbase fees for example.

“Immediately saves money.”

I don’t understand why you need to make these false claims, as the idea should pass on its own merits - ending working groups, moving forward & no more dumb sh*t.

Thanks.

[furiousanger]

@SmartAPE

Collectively, all four working groups are costing or will cost the DAO almost $3M per year

Made time when I noticed you doubled down on the nonsense claim and added this in. Pmsl.

They may have “cost”, but they are not costing. (English not math.)

Maybe add context too like - if the community approved the budgets, and based on their last budget, I estimate….

Also don’t forget to then minus off/add on the new ongoing costs that will be set in stone by new powers granted to the foundation and the RFPs that will follow with no way to reject.

Should put: “Immediately this AIP will be creating ongoing costs.”

Look I agree with the intent of this AIP to end working groups. I’m indifferent to the RFP stuff as maybe it works, we’ll see. But what I have issue with is you trying to sell this as a cost saving exercise when the truth is working groups are not costing us a penny currently, however they did cost us money in the past. And then ofc you will be introducing ongoing costs that you claim will be “less” - again a false claim - as no way you can guarantee or know this, and neither is it outlined within the AIP (just words).

Tl;dr - You’re advocating to replace NO COSTS with ONGOING COSTS (which could be greater, not less as you claim), and at the same time you want to remove the community’s ability to decide on those costs happening, instead replacing choice with direction in the form of multiple choice RFPs presented by the highly transparent foundation. The cherry on top - you’re trying to sell it all with the false claims of “saving money”.

Thanks.

[capetaintrippy]

SC Will likely have their own AIP to unwind but it’s a bit more complicated and so best to vote on it separate, imo.