AIP-474: Delegated ApeCoin Community Voting Wallet

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

Edits have been made to this Topic, by the author, by the author’s request, or 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

1 Like

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

hey
1 wallet = 1 vote even with a quadratic formula and the preventive measures listed on the snapshot do not provide enough sybil resistance.
With a quadratic formula, you could create a set of 1000 wallets with just 1 APE each to match a 1M-wallet vote.
As an alternative, I guess using regular BAYC/MAYC vote would do a better job in sybil prevention.

1 Like

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

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

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

Kind Regards,

-@Facilitators

True. However, doing something is better than the alternative - which is doing nothing. We can start with this and see how it goes from there. But the key here is to completely remove the influence of whales in our voting system whereby currently a 6M wallet which doesn’t even represent a full 1% of circulating supply, gets the final say in our voting system due to low participation by token hodlers.

And I am completely against the idea of using BAYC/MAYC or any combination thereof for voting.

Also, what about those who don’t have these NFTs? Then what?

1 Like

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@SmartAPE has responded to our questions and has provided consent to share them in this forum for the community.

Click to expand Q&A with @SmartAPE

1. Please update your Overall Cost section, as this proposal would require the earmarking of 25,000,000 ApeCoin for the purposes of delegation.

Please make the following changes to the proposal:

Total amount requested from the ApeCoin Ecosystem Fund = 25,000,000 ApeCoin

2. “The temp check will be a multi-choice Snapshot for all the AIPs which are up for vote at the time.”
To be clear, each AIP up for vote during a given voting cycle would necessarily require a unique “temp check” vote, yet this language seems to imply that this temp check vote on all AIPs for vote could be done with a single Snapshot entry. Do we have this correctly, and if so may we update the language of your proposal to reflect this?

Ah! For clarity:

1. A temp check is required for each AIP that goes up to vote on Snapshot

2. If it’s possible to have all the AIPs up for temp check vote be in a single multiple choice Snapshot, then it’s better that way than to have individual ones. e.g. instead of 5 individual temp checks for 5 AIPs, we would have all 5 AIPs in a single multiple-choice Snapshot in which members get to vote for each of the 5 AIPs.

Please make the following changes to the proposal:

From:

The temp check will be a multi-choice Snapshot for all the AIPs which are up for vote at the time.

To:

The temp check will be a Snapshot for each of the AIPs which are up for vote at the time. This means that the number of temp-check Snapshot votes would match the number of AIPs up for vote. Instead of individual temp-check Snapshots, the community team also has the option to include a single multi-choice Snapshot that includes all AIPs that are up for vote.

3. Would the “temp check” Snapshot vote exist on the ApeCoin DAO Snapshot page, the GWG Tempchecks Snapshot page, or somewhere else?

It’s preferable to have them up on the GWG TempChecks Snapshot.

4. What would be the procedure in the event of a tie (that is, an equal number of votes being cast “For” and “Against” any given temp check AIP)?

While mathematically it would be rare for this to occur, it’s probably best to plan a contingency.

And so, in the event of a tie, then the community wallet would vote ABSTAIN on the AIP.

NOTE: I am hesitant to introduce a tie-breaker in the mix as that would rely on third-parties external to the community wallet. e.g. We could use a majority GwG member vote as the tie-breaker. And if that results in another tie, then it goes up to the Special Council for a similar majority vote of those members. And if that results in yet another tie, then the wallet would vote to ABSTAIN.

5. Please provide proof of consent from the Governance Working Group Stewards and their willingness to cooperate in the implementation of this proposal, or alternatively, update the proposal to indicate an option for them to opt-in to participate. Otherwise, the proposal will be Rejected for violating the community guidelines.

I wasn’t aware that we needed such a “proof of consent” in order to involve GwG in DAO activities. Similarly, if I provide “opt-in” and they refuse to participate, then this proposal will fail.

Please make the following changes to the proposal:

From:

3. Going forward, within 3-days of proposals going up to vote, the GwG will put up a ‘temp check’ Snapshot vote which will run for a period of 3-days (including weekends)**

To:

3. Going forward, within 3-days of proposals going up to vote, a team of community volunteers selected by me, the proposal author, will put up a temp check Snapshot vote which will run for a period of 3-days (including weekends).

From:

4. At the end of the 3-day period, this multi-sig wallet will be used to vote for the AIP based on the voting results of the temp check. For example, a majority FOR vote in the temp check for an AIP, requires the wallet to vote FOR in the corresponding AIP.

To:

4. At the end of the 3-day temp check voting period, the CVW wallet will be used to vote for the AIP based on the voting results of the temp check Snapshot. A majority FOR or AGAINST requires the wallet to vote on the AIP based on the prevailing vote count. In the event of a tie, then the wallet would vote ABSTAIN on the AIP.

Add:

5. There is no time frame during which the CVW wallet is required to vote prior to the close of the regular AIP voting period. If for some reason (e.g. Force Majeure) the CVW wallet fails to vote prior to close of the voting period, then the results of the temp check vote are discarded.

6. Would there be a minimum time frame for casting of the official CVW wallet vote on Snapshot prior to the close of the voting period?

No. I have added this to a new section 5 (above).

7. Would this proposal also apply to election candidate voting?

Yes - because elections also go through the AIP process

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

Yes

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

Yes

Edits have been made to this Topic, by the author, by the author’s request, or with the author’s consent. You can click the Pencil icon at the top of the post to see these edits.

A DAR package is being worked on and upon completion this AIP will move into Administrative Review. Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.

Kind Regards,

-@Facilitators

1 Like

Well, this something is going to make it even worse. A motivated party could cast up to 25M votes against the community’s will.

So, you’re saying that mathematically, whereby we currently have two whale wallets amounting to almost 11M $APE, that’s OK because a motivated person or a delegation could come along with a wallet larger than $25M if this proposal passes? How did you arrive at this conclusion? How come we still don’t have a wallet larger than 6.3M (Moca) if that were the case?

That’s not logical to me.

Also, invite you to study the data below carefully.

GWG x LiveFast: Historical AIP Voting Analysis With Alternate Strategies

I’m trying to say that quadratic voting in this context will introduce a completely different problem. 1000 wallets (with just 1 APE each) will have the same voting power as one wallet with 1M APE in it.

That’s not relevant because there are anti-sybil policies for that in Snapshot.

Also, whale wallets controlling the DAO are far greater tgreat than someone going through the trouble of a Sybil attack in that manner.

No solution is perfect, but saying that the current situation shouldn’t be revised because a proposed remedy is inadequate doesn’t limit the threat.

Can you specify the exact measures that would prevent sybils in this context/proposal? Snapshot does outline some options, but does not claim to have a solution for everyone.

Not sure this is the case. Giving away control over 25M votes to a random 3rd party does not seem to be a solution to the whale problem.

That’s not the point.

And why would Snapshot make a claim that they have a strategy solution for everyone?

The point is that the pre-existing voting system is horrifically inadequate, and the only people who seem to think “yeah, this is fine” fall into two camps :

  • whales
  • those who benefit from whale voting

Sitting around talking about it, instead of finding a solution isn’t going to yield any results. And while there are remedies in Snapshot, everything has a backdoor which can be exploited. That’s just a factor in any software; and is why I wrote this other proposal tasking the Ape Foundation to come up with a solution. And I gave several options. I invite you to read that proposal because it’s a lot more detailed in scope than this one.

AIP-471: Special Council To Propose Voting System Reform

FYI, Snapshot supports quadratic voting. And if you go to that link (also included in the proposal), you will see a huge banner that says:


This Voting type may encourage the whales to create multiple wallets and split their holdings among them. Therefore it’s important to also implement a mechanism providing Sybil Resistance. Read more here!

Pros : Dilutes the whales’ voting power in favor of smaller holders. Individuals will matter more than the number of tokens.
Cons : This voting type needs to be accompanied by a Sybil-resistance mechanism that prevents whales from splitting funds across different wallets.


There’s no “random 3rd party”. Where are you getting that from? If you click the pencil on the top-right, you will see the proposal changes. I had opted for GwG to handle this. But I was informed - as you will see from the proposal update - that they can’t do it without my asking them to do so. And so, I opted for three community members to handle the voting with that specific wallet.

I have to mention once again that allocating a $25M voting wallet is purely designed to give the community - not external voting whale wallets - a voice in their own DAO. It’s not hard to understand. Whether or not it ends up having the desired effect is left to history.

Have you see this proposal?

Restoring Balance

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

Edits have been made to this Topic, by the author, by the author’s request, or 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

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,

-@Facilitators

Is there a reason you avoided the question before the statement?
This proposal without a concrete anti-sybil mechanism is rather incomplete and even dangerous for the DAO.

I phrased it like that because it can be a community member, a whale, or anyone in between and there is no way to identify it. It comes down to who has a bigger motivation to set up a cluster of wallets.

Look at it from an individual non-whale community member perspective.
Let’s say, you have 10 000 APE. It will take an attacker just 100 wallets with 1 APE each to silence your opinion in the “temp check”.
You can do the math on a scale and see that it would not cost too much to silence the entire active community. Then, once you control the “temp check” - you can turn down every single AIP.

I am commenting on this particular AIP.

That’s an elegant solution @SmartAPE +1!

1 Like

I didn’t avoid anything. I don’t do that. I spend quite a bit of my [valuable] time in replying to posts that I deem worthy of my time. If you are referring to this part:

Can you specify the exact measures that would prevent sybils in this context/proposal?

I did respond. I said “That’s not the point” - then went on to fully expand on why I said that.

I already addressed this - in detail. Which part are you struggling with?

What are you talking about? The multi-sig wallet setup by the Ape Foundation to hold the delegated 25M will be controlled by 3 members of the community.

Hypotheticals are irrelevant and inconsequential. As a dev, I know all too well that no matter how robust the system, there will always be an attack vector. But it doesn’t stop us from making software, and to the best of our abilities.

And nothing you are saying is new to anyone who knows anything about quadratic voting and Sybil attacks. Even as I type this, less than 24hrs ago, the FractalID system was compromised by a third-party vector attack, while yet another crypto exchange was exploited to the tune of over $230M.

The proposal has quadratic voting + anti-Sybil strategies. That’s all we can do with what we have. And it’s a lot better than just sitting around wailing about the voting system controlled by whales who routinely voted against the best interests of the DAO, yet not doing anything about it.

The point I was making there is that yet another proposal seeks to do something about the slanted whale-controlled voting system. There’s a reason for that.

whats the problem to describe them as part of the proposal? )

Dont get me wrong. Im not trying to drain your time, my goal is to help the DAO to avoid something that will make things even worse.

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

Edits have been made to this Topic, by the author, by the author’s request, or 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