You are so correct, please check here.
1 Like
Hereās the issue; ānot showing upā isnāt the right term.
Most of the stewards are doing things. I saw @PhilWatkins be accused of ānot showing upā earlier, but I know he does because we get constant advice and connections from him on the gaming side for Banana Bill, and heās consistently out there networking on behalf of ApeCoin/ApeChain.
Whatās actually the issue here is that most working group stewards arenāt (or canāt) effectively following their organizationsā charters, laid-out specific initiatives, and original OKRs. Many (Iād say most) use their positions as a bully pulpit to pursue the spirit of their working groups, and a number of them are quite effective in doing so, but thatās not the same. Thereās also clearly a need to revamp transparency reporting if nobody can follow it. And thatās what I meant when I said there are structural issues.
So, given the above, I think that what needs to be considered is either:
- Is there actual value in the current charters?
- Should we just do away w/ the chartered missions and recognizing the stewards as thought leaders in their specific areas (which would have knock on effects on budget requests, etc.)
- Should we even have working groups?
- If so, what should they look like? Can they be more scoped in?
- If not, what are the quick follow-ons on how critical functions are handled moving forward should they be eliminated? (Iāve already argued for additional power w/in the foundation and a push for pluralistic, but much more mission-driven and scoped in programs through AIPs)
2 Likes
100% agree here. A level of centralisation is fine, but it needs to be fully transparent and the DAO needs the ability to hold the WGs etc accountable. Either via a pause in operations or removal.
It also seems to me (please correct me if iām wrong). If said WGs/SC have the ability to approve/refuse proposals means that it is unlikely that itās even possible to hold them to account if needed. If true, then this is a major problem.
I am working on an outline of how I think a new structure could work (delayed be illness 
). I will try and get it in here soon.
1 Like
SC can refuse proposals / shuttle them on for vote. Thatās a regulatory/legal issue that canāt be changed under the current set-up.
On-chain voting can help fix this and allow a move to set and automated preparation periods, heat checks, and referendum killers (i.e. allowing more of an open and automated process for getting towards a DAO vote and putting that line of defense both out in the open more clearly and having to actively ākillā proposals in public rather than sit on them. Note that that is not an accusation that SC is sitting on anything, but right now, the system, as I understand it, is very manual and requires affirmative approval to pass through, so things take time).
6 Likes
Thank you for clarifying that. I too do not assume any misuse of power, but the current set up does leave room for potential corruption. Itās good to know that going on-chain will allow more transparency, and potentially fix this issue.
There still lies the issue of unevenly distributed voting power, but one problem at a time 
1 Like
Adding transparency to the process and / or moving it on-chain will be key. Even if it doesnāt change the results of AIPs getting to vote, greater understanding and predictability in the process will be good for the credibility of the DAO long term.
3 Likes
My AIP (AIP-480: ApeCoin DAO & the Future of DAO Legitimacy) was first posted on June 12. While caution is important, itās coming up on 4 months to propose an AIP that has no serious business or legal issues (itās a grant to a nonprofit organization). A third of a year to create a proposal is rather impracticable. And yet, thereās no transparency about the process.
3 Likes
Sorry for the late reply. I do think thereās some potential conflict of interest here, and itās something the DAO has struggled with since the beginning. While the Special Council doesnāt decide whether an AIP should pass or fail, their ability to Return for Reconstruction or Clarification and extend the review period is often subjective and can absolutely impact the timeline and progression of proposals.
I also agree with those whoāve said that we need more transparency in that process, as Iāve heard many authors express frustration when their proposals sit in Administrative Review with no clear timeline before they go to voteāespecially for those with time-sensitive deadlines. With @DavidWās comment above being the latest example.
I think moving toward more on-chain voting, like @blockchainzilla mentioned, could help alleviate some of these issues, if itās set up properly. However, I also believe we need more transparency and communication from the Foundation overall. Thatās why Iām hesitant to give them more power through this AIP when the current need is for better clarity and openness in their processes.
4 Likes
This proposal is live for vote on 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.
Well said. Also I had a disturbing exchange with a facilitator, who said a post was not visible, as flagged by the community, but the post was blocked to be posted by them in the first place. Hence, impossible to be flagged by the community. It relates to this topic, as it was discussing enhancements to AIP-239. I am concerned if I post the screen grabs here, but have shared with the DAO administration.
How can this go to vote when the main author is suspended from the forum. Also, many questions have not be answered by the authors, which is a requirement of the ApeCoin Dao?
2 Likes
You seem to misunderstand. The author is required to implement any changes to their submitted AIP as a result of any feedback that they chose to implement. They are not required to answer your questions or make any changes based on your feedback.
The author being banned has zero bearing on their AIP going up to vote. This has happened before.
3 Likes
Responsible for incorporating relevant feedback.
This statement is pretty clear. All the information requested to be clarified is relevant feedback.
This isnāt a discussion about centralisation vs decentralisation. It is about whether the Special Council as advisors has the right to not follow the DAO approved AIPs and approved DAO rules.
I agree the statement is pretty clear, and that your interpretation of that clear statement is incorrect. You clearly have a grudge against Derek, but itās time to move on. The AIP is up for vote and passed all relevant checks and balances. Itās up to the voters now.
1 Like
I hope @capetaintrippy can answer the relevant questions in a timely manner.
This was shared to the administrator and Special Council on a personal capacity BEFORE this went into Administrative Review.
Concerns regarding Draft AIP-466
- Title is subjective.
It is to close ALL current Working Groups?
Now it states Non Essential WGs. How to define non-essential?
2.Captain Trippy 7
(Former) ApeCoin DAO Special Council
Author description is incomplete. It is not showing his current Banana Bill role. When updated based on Banana Bill published content it was flagged and removed by the forum moderators.
-
Org Chart is out of date
-
The DAO created these working groups. And the DAO is well within its actions, activities, and purview to close them as per AIP-239: Working Group Guidelines & The Governance Working Group Charter 2
The DAO has the right to close āa working groupā. Meaning closing them one by one in separate AIPs.
- Collectively, all four working groups are costing or will cost the DAO almost $3M per year
This is an unsubstantiated opinion. Especially, as currently no new budgets have passed.
Also if the activities become separate AIPs and/or RFPs they will not all be 0 cost.
This is misleading as if No AIP for Working Group budgets pass it saves nothing.
-
To date, the new Working Groups have been largely ineffective in their mandate.
Again statement without any clear evidence. -
The DAO immediately saves money.
If the DAO saves money, please quantify this statement. How much money? Especially given Working Group budgets are required to pass separate AIPs.
Also if the Foundation spends money to do the same task, compare the saving amount or remove this subjective statement.
A reminder, the AIP-1 states clearly
The total cost of implementation must be clear in order for a proposal to go to vote.
7.The DAO can re-purpose LESS funds to hire/contract experienced third-parties who have a lot more experience in the specific areas previously outlined in this WG charter.
No evidence to back up this claim.
- The DAO no longer has to deal with the distractions, funding, and down time associated with elections as well as the budget proposals and voting for these working groups.
If work is done via AIPs, then there is still going to be voting on proposals.
- Going forward, and on an as-needed basis and at its discretion, this proposal grants the following to the Ape Foundation:
As per the RFP, without the need or requirement for any additional stewards, the Ape Foundation manage and co-ordinate the consulting and hiring of any third-parties selected by the RFP to perform the required roles with specific KPIs and OKRs which are to be shared with the DAO community.
Who in the Foundation will do this work? At what cost? Webslinger?
- Pay in full, to affected stewards, any/all amounts that are in arrears.
Clearly list - who is affected. Define affected Stewards and list them out.
- Additionally, at its discretion, the Ape Foundation would put up RFPs for activities and work which were previously required to be performed by the aforementioned working group. As per the RFP, hire third-party teams which would be directed to handle all activities previously performed by this WG.
This is put as a 0 cost proposal, but WGs with no new budgets approved are put at 3m USD costs.
Potential Risks
Financial Risk: Can create costs to wind down the groups. Can lead to increased costs by using third party vendors.
I think you need to clarify the degree to which the ApeCoin Foundation will be asked to be directly involved in the proposalās implementation. This could create a noteworthy financial risk, as administrators (Web Slinger) would likely be requested to perform tasks beyond the scope of their current contract scope.
A simple question, will this require additional spending from the Foundation to manage? Yes or No answer please.
Operational Risk: It could disrupt the Initiatives in the Working Groups. As there is no clear transition plan for them.
Legal Risk: Allowing to go to vote, shows that the Special Council is not acting as an advisory capacity and is still acting as a Board, in conflict with an approved AIP.
Risk that the DAO is seen to not follow the DAOs internal processes. Stewards can deem the changes to the process a breach of terms of the previous AIPs approved. Showing risk that Special Council are not acting in an advisory capacity, but as an operational capacity.
Brand Risk: Having a key member of the Banana Bill as an author with SmartApe. Co-author has the risk of being seen as a self-serving move after establishing the Banana bill. Before the change, posts were made on X by a co-author promoting a post with false statements and defamation.
5 Likes
Once again, there is no requirement for a person submitting an AIP to answer any questions from any user. Plenty of AIPs have passed with unanswered questions that were relevant.
The only thing the person submitting the AIP has to answer to is the foundation / SC. You have no authority over the AIP process, and no one is beholden to answer any questions you ask, just like Gerry previously told you in the ApeCoin Discord.
This is very basic stuff. All the person submitting the AIP has to do is meet the requirements set by the foundation. Thatās it. If they meet them, it goes to vote. This went to vote. I sincerely hope it passes so we can get qualified people into the right positions in the systems that are rebuilt as a result.
4 Likes
Could not have said it better myself.
2 Likes
Authors should have no issues answering questions on the forum. @bigbullās questions are reasonable and answers should be forthcoming from the AIP authors as should any conflicts of interest.
Answering questions from forum members allows for voters to make more informed decisions and allows AIP authors to offer clarity should there be the need as well as giving space to edit and forward better AIPs
2 Likes
I agree with this @nataliecrue but am concerned that @SmartAPE has been suspendedā¦ This user is suspended until Sep 30, 2025 2:36 pm. ā¦ and thus cannot respond to any further enquiries on his AIP. @aaronhaber and I have therefore asked @SmartAPE to participate in the next episode of Delegate This! next Thursday on X to answer any questions that anyone has.
4 Likes
@ernestlee two people are listed in the team. @capetaintrippy from the Banana Bill (see his CT X profile) is able to answer questions, if he wishes.
Tripp (Captain Trippy)
APECHAIN Banana Bill Advisor, Former Special Council
DAO/ BAYC#8023
@ape__solar
2 Likes
BigBull reported Derek across multiple accounts as he thought that if Derek were to be banned, the AIP could not go up to vote. I hope @Lost.Admin checks the IPs across the accounts that flagged Derekās posts and takes any required action if a clear pattern is established.