AIP-487: ApeCoin Community Engagement Platform

[SmartAPE]

@ZastrowBradley

I appreciate the amount of time, detail and thought you put into the ACE Platform proposal. This is a big bet, which I like but building with the interconnectivity of the 4 projects is also important. DAOs don’t have typical management structures so this interconnectivity ensures a better/quicker outcome vs. 4 independent projects coming together. It also makes sense given the nature of that connectivity; I’d prefer the natural goal/incentive alignment that will exist with the portal, identity, world and token being managed by the same team. For this to succeed we need that cohesion.

Thanks, Brad!

I am glad that you pointed out the interconnectivity aspect. I was beginning to wonder if I had failed to make this part clear. I even went back and re-structured the proposal for clarity because it’s so detailed that it’s easy for some parts to be missed and/or skimped over.

If I were to split the proposal into 4 parts, this would be the outcome:

PROJECT	ERRATA
1-ApeCoin Platform Portal	This is just a web platform landing site similar to mocaverse.xyz
2-ApeID Identity	This is a login identity across dApps + tied to rewards system
3-ApeCoin Online Worlds	Core of the project
4-AOW Token	Associated with AOW + the rewards funnel

1 - This is needed for 2 + 3

2 - This is needed for 1 + 3

3 - This is the core of the project and needs 1 + 2

4 - is immaterial because it’s not needed for at least +12 months post-launch. And this doesn’t even need its own proposal because by the time we even start working on it, the project would already be launched and generating revenue to fund it.

So, I truly don’t see how creating 3 proposals (the 4th does not require a separate proposal), aside from DAO voting shenanigans, helps anything.

If it’s about splitting it so it passes at vote, then that’s an even bigger issue to discuss because the DAO has a storied history of funding inconsequential proposals, most more expensive than this. And yet again we have something impactful such as this, and we’re having this same discussion about “It’s too expensive to pass”. That’s just crazy to me. Honestly.

@ZastrowBradley

Speed to market is something I appreciate greatly and given a) this isn’t your first rodeo with gaming and b) it’s based on pre-existing off the shelf tech, I certainly have more confidence on the execution as well. Using existing tech is analogous to forking a protocol, it’s efficient and battle tested.

Indeed. And that’s precisely why I chose to go that route. And it’s a lot simpler since we’re not actually building a game.

@ZastrowBradley

More tactically, the ApeID is something I really like and important infrastructure on which to build moving forward. We’ve seen Animoca and Immutable both do this with their ID systems. Interoperability across the “universe” will be critical.

Yeah, there’s that. In fact, that aspect can be moved into a separate proposal. But all that does is reduce the budget by about $1M. And also, puts a gaping hole in my vision for the associated rewards program, the ApeChain tie-in to other dApps etc.

While it’s one less thing to build, I can simply remove it from the proposal entirely, and not do a separate proposal. Then it becomes someone else’s problem. And I will just go and use MocaID exclusively since they already have their act together. And that, right there, is precisely how early mistakes get made and which end up shaping the future.

@ZastrowBradley

Tokens will be important to get right of course. My advice here is to focus on demand for the token and why people will want to buy and/or hold it. I’ve seen a lot of complex tokenomic design but many miss this basic principle. Not suggesting this is your approach, but for example, a token that is only used for discounts or voting, by definition sets a ceiling to it’s price, regardless of any supply levers being pulled. Do we buy & hold coupons? Of course not, so why would someone do the same with a digital one?

Agreed. But I wasn’t even planning on doing anything with the token for some months down the road, since it’s not the focus of the project. It’s just a rewards tie-in to give people something to look forward to as per their engagement.

In this regard, I have also been in discussions with @Grains0x who has vast experience running affiliate programs and has been quite successful with it. My goal for this was to tap into his knowledge and expertise, along with third-party experts (they are listed in the proposal) to augment that experience and to come up with a successful rewards program for ApeID that’s tied into the AOW platform.

@ZastrowBradley

In the broader context of ApeChain launching this month, I also think a big bet like this is even more critical. We’ve voted down other game builders who aren’t returning (Jonah) and I haven’t heard anything concrete with gaming launch partners (please correct me if I’m wrong). While timing isn’t everything, it’s definitely something and the timing of this proposal also makes it more important.

We only get 1 chance to make a first impression with ApeChain. An underwhelming launch is not a great way to position it for long term success. I’d love to see this come up to vote ASAP. We also know AIPs can be fast-tracked (F1, Banana Bill, etc…) @SmartAPE have you been able to chat with the SC yet on any path to fast track the AIP?

Preaching to the choir here. I have been having this very same discussion with several people.

I have no idea how a fast track proposal even works because we have no insight into that. Nor is it anywhere in AIP-1. It appears to be something that the Ape Foundation decides on their own. And since I’m probably the last person they actually want to hear from - about anything - I doubt that my query would get anywhere. I do have good relationship with GwG, so I’ll probably ask them - though I don’t actually expect an answer since they’re a separate entity anyway, and that sort of thing is probably outside their purview. Such is our DAO.

@ZastrowBradley

While the Banana Bill doesn’t require gaming projects to only go through their team - I appreciate your comment re: why not the Banana Bill in your FAQ. I think it makes sense on why it wasn’t your initial path. However, if this AIP was voted down for some reason, would you explore the Banana Bill at a later date or would you restructure the AIP?

I am in constant touch with Jordan and we’ve been going back and forth about various things even as he tries to get BB up and running under such crazy schedules and timing.

But I still have some concerns about putting this proposal through the BB - even after the fact. For one thing, it will likely no longer be a community project because it would fall under the Commercial Agreements Initiative: Games, DeFi, and other activations which states:

If the proposal gets voted down, that probably won’t happen until end of Aug to mid- Sept given the AIP backlog that GwG + SC are currently dealing with. And if I decide to go through BB, by the time that gets, discussed, negotiated etc. - and assuming they actually do fund it, then we’re talking sometime in YE24 - especially due to the holidays. That then blows through the [small] window of opportunity completely. Which probably doesn’t matter all that much because, unknown to us mere mortals, there are probably great ApeChain projects waiting in the wings to launch soon, and this project then won’t be all that important anyway. We’ll just have to wait and see, I guess.

@ZastrowBradley

While I understand you may not be privy to this detail but do you know if there’s any games already building on ApeChain that may compete with this proposal in some way?

Not that I know of. There’s no way that I can see how any sane dev or studio would be working on such a project and it not be public - or even whispered around - by now. Especially in Web3. And if there are such projects, I would be highly curious to know what their reason is for sitting around and waiting for ApeChain. I just don’t see it.