Adding transparency to the process and / or moving it on-chain will be key. Even if it doesn’t 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, it’s coming up on 4 months to propose an AIP that has no serious business or legal issues (it’s a grant to a nonprofit organization). A third of a year to create a proposal is rather impracticable. And yet, there’s no transparency about the process.
3 Likes
Sorry for the late reply. I do think there’s some potential conflict of interest here, and it’s something the DAO has struggled with since the beginning. While the Special Council doesn’t 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 who’ve said that we need more transparency in that process, as I’ve heard many authors express frustration when their proposals sit in Administrative Review with no clear timeline before they go to vote—especially for those with time-sensitive deadlines. With @DavidW’s 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 it’s set up properly. However, I also believe we need more transparency and communication from the Foundation overall. That’s why I’m hesitant to give them more power through this AIP when the current need is for better clarity and openness in their processes.
5 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.
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 “a working group”. 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 proposal’s 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
Authors should have no issues answering questions on the forum. @bigbull’s 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
5 Likes
I agree with this @nataliecrue but am concerned that @SmartAPE has been suspended… This user is suspended until Sep 30, 2025 2:36 pm. … 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.
5 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
Oh wow! I read back and saw that @smartape was banned. Banning Derek for a year is rather outrageous. And while I rarely agree with him, situations like this warrant mediation between parties in conflict. The assumptions in this thread are wild! An investigation is warranted and I urge people to foster communication and get to the bottom of this.
An additional concern to what @bigbull has positioned here is the possible manufacturing by said parties to push forth a hostile DAO takeover. I need folks to issue their conflicts of interests. Tweets from Trippy on Twitter this morning seem to substantiate this notion that authors and adjacent parties are looking to push everything under ApeChain which may threaten the vitality and longevity of the DAO as well as the treasury.
I urge all stewards and special council to tend to this matter urgently/ASAP.
Hiring, working groups and functions of a DAO should not land under ONE corporate entity or one large token holder. To protect the interest of a DAO and its community members, some level of decentralization, power sharing and a separation between church and state is necessary. Failure to do so could led to a drain of the entire treasury, nepotism, emergence of bad practices, centralization, power vacuums and other conflicts to arise.
4 Likes
Banning a DAO participant for a year without clear explanation to the community as to why, along with clarity on which written rules were broken and how this punishment was properly mandated is not only centralized control, it is also extremely excessive. This really calls into question all ideas of transparency or decentralization. Absent a clear explanation from those in authority as to why a tokenholder was banned, I believe Derek should be unbanned.
3 Likes
I do not always agree with everything that @SmartApe says. I also do not agree that the way he says it is the way I would have chosen to convey the same message. I do, however, believe that the DAO would benefit from being able to hear his position on these things and do not believe that he should have been banned for a year for the things that he said. Derek has posted a summary of his issues on X here. Additionally, Delegate This! will have Derek on the X Spaces this Thursday 10 October 2024 at 12:30 PM EST to answer any questions that you may have for him about AIP-466.
3 Likes
My post removed
So let’s rephrase
IMO working groups can be rationalized
Is it ok ?
Censorship ? … FCK IT 
2 Likes
I think the critical issue is the lack of clarity about what is considered an offense serious enough to ban someone for a year. While I certainly don’t question your emotions, none of those posts you flagged are racist, sexist, hate-filled, sexual, or morally offensive. He did cast aspersions on those who hold a certain political stance, which was in poor taste, especially as it’s not clear (to me) what he meant, in that it could be conservative, republican, or some other political view. He also suggested that someone did not do enough work to earn their paycheck.
While I agree that Derek’s tone was sarcastic, if these are enough to ban someone for an entire year, then this is not a safe place for anyone to have a discussion. If the leaders cannot or will not clearly explain what constitutes language worthy of a year-long ban, then there is no rule of law.
4 Likes
Looks like Furiousanger’s account was suspended as well. Till October 22.
3 Likes
RIP to everyone…
people should touch the grass more often in here…
3 Likes
Aaron Haber and I hosted a very informative X Space in regard to AIP-466. Feel free to listen here.. For any Apes that still read, I will be posting a link to the transcript soon.
8 Likes
The full transcript of the space can be found here.. You can also read the transcript in several languages.
6 Likes
Great space, @ernestlee and @AaronHaber! Voters should definitely tune in and give it a listen!
ApeComms also hosted a space with SmartAPE diving deeper (begins about 41 mins in)—feel free to check it out if you’re looking for more discussion:
6 Likes
Ernest is truly the best!
3 Likes
Derek has added the following note to the beginning of his article,
“Given the length of this article and for the avoidance of doubt, I want to make clear my position about my AIP-466 proposal; and in so doing, to withdraw my support for its current form.”
2 Likes