AIP-489: Restoring Balance

Final AIPs Rejected AIPs
1

Proposal Name:

Restoring Balance

Team Description:

Captain Trippy
Twitter: @capetaintrippy
ApeChain Advisor, Banana Program Advisory Committee, Former Special Council.

JRNY Crypto:
Twitter: @jrnycrypto
CEO and founder of Aiur Labs, JRNY CLUB, BlockNews.com, and more. Also created and built up a Crypto-focused YouTube channel to over 600k subscribers during the last bull market.

Gerry:
Twitter: @nftgerry
Former Special Council and long-time community member. Founding member of the Surreal Apes.

Amplify:
Twitter: @0xAmplify
Amplify is a former governance working group steward and a passionate member of the APE community since day 1.

DeJen:
Twitter: @dejen_eth
Dejen - Dejen is the founder of Surreal Guild and has expertly and consistently managed the Surreal snapshot vote for the past year. A seasoned Ape and Etherean, she has also served as a judge at multiple ETH Global events.

Proposal Description:

This proposal aims to allocate 13.8 Million ApeCoin in voting power to better reflect the contributions and stakes of Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC), Mutant Ape Yacht Club (MAYC), Kodas, and Otherdeed holders within our community. We aim to create a more balanced and representative governance. We aim to create two distinct wallets; one for the monkees and one for the Kodas and the Deeds they keep watch over.

The Ape Wallet will have 6.9 million ApeCoin delegated to it by The Ape Foundation. The vote will be controlled by BAYC (2 votes) and MAYC (1 vote) via snapshot.

The Otherside Wallet will have 6.9 million ApeCoin delegated to it and will be controlled by Koda (2 votes) and Otherdeed Expanded holders (1 vote)

  • This delegation will have a one-year term starting from the date that the wallets are used to vote in any AIP. The term can be renewed if a member puts up an AIP to extend it before the term ends. However, these delegations will not be used to vote in any subsequent decisions related to them, such as renewing, extending, or ending it early.

Benefit to ApeCoin Ecosystem:

The proposed voting adjustment aims to empower those who were intended to lead The Otherside. This change is designed to foster a fairer voting environment, promoting decisions that benefit the broader community and support the long-term health of the ecosystem. The timing is critical as we approach the launch of major initiatives like Otherside and ApeChain.

Steps to Implement:

  1. Wallet Creation: Upon approval, The APE Foundation will create one or more wallets to securely hold the ApeCoin.
  2. Delegation: The ApeCoin will be delegated to two hot wallets; one for Apes and one for Koda and Deed holders. Each vote must meet a minimum quorum of 420. These will be managed by Amplify and Dejen.
  3. Snapshot Configuration: Amplify and Dejen will set up and manage the two new Snapshot pages, transferring AIPs to Snapshot and voting accordingly.
  4. Pending an extension, one year after the APE Foundation allocates the ApeCoin, this delegation will be dissolved.

Reporting Expectations:

Regular, weekly updates will be provided through the official ApeCoin community channels, keeping the community informed about the progress and any adjustments in the process while the program is being stood up. After voting begins and the process is functional and routine; reports will be limited to changes, updates, or any unforeseen irregularities that need to be addressed.

Overall Cost:

Total amount requested from the ApeCoin Ecosystem Fund = No Cost

This ApeCoin would remain in the custody of the APE Foundation.

1 Like
2

Change log for changing things that need to be changed

July 5th - Added Quorum rules

3

Have you considered modifiers to add/remove delegates amounts in the event that other delegations increase/decrease their voting power?

3 Likes
4

I said earlier in a post complaining when you can do something about an issue is lazy, appreciate the action versus complaining… I think these numbers may be a bit higher than necessary …. The downside would be for someone wanting to buy a normal amount of say in the Apecoin ecosystem, the amount of say would be half basically….

I don’t believe the balance has been the issue of Apecoin…. Look at the history, there was one pump in the middle of the Apecoin 2 year slide… it was when Apecoin had a decent product for 3 weeks… to me, if there are actual worthwhile use cases for Apecoin, price go up and folks are happy… right now, Apecoin is a culture token while culture sentiment is pretty low…

Biggest Pro: More tokens —-> harder to buy the vote for the big guys

Biggest Con: More tokens —-> harder to impact vote for the little guys

My thoughts, Vote in 2 phases
1)Yes or No on the need for this
2) size of delegations

(BEST OPTION) If the main reason for doing this is the Moca Vote, reach out to Tyler and have a discussion about decreasing the delegation size… no need to tip toe around it… Moca leadership has always been available to community leaders and the council…

Ultimately, mixed emotions on this from a 3 year Yuga holder… best option maybe chat with Mocaverse, otherwise I’d say 13-14M delegation vote is a bit high… could get behind a smaller number. Appreciate the initiative and contributions as always.

1 Like
5

This is one of the better proposals I’ve seen in quite a while. Much needed to restore a healthy balance in the dao. A few entities are currently deciding everything with millions of votes, and we all know that a counterweight is much needed at this point. Who is better suited than the apes themselves, who are at the core of apecoin. Let’s get this done. Let’s make the apecoin dao great again. :handshake::gorilla:

6

Gm gm Ape Brothers…

  • why we not join forces with similar existing AIP‘s ?

There is one up already, competitive Aip‘s should not go Hand in Hand or the Council should create a RFP like for Apechain cause of the High interest on this Topic.

  • Why to seperate Bayc and Mayc Holders ?

Again implementing a divorcing Barrier and vaulation of Club Members.

…creates a money Barrier to give advantage to rich people

…in other Delegations like Mocaverse a 1/1 or a Rare much more expensive Moca also has not more votes

…has a Mayc than 0.5 Votes or we simply exclude all Mayc Holders from that Delegation ?

… oh i see that was adjusted :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:. … so why does a Bayc has double the voice ?

1 Apecoin = 2 Apecoin for Nft Holders too ?

2 Likes
7

I do have an issue with this.

Basically I can buy 85 expanded othersdeeds at a cost of approx 10ETH and get 85 votes.

OR

Buy 1 bayc at a cost of approx 10ETH and only get 2 votes. (Or 5 MAYC at same cost and get 5 votes.)

This doesn’t seem proportionate or fair to me and will just further dilute the value of BAYC & MAYC NFTs imo.

(Even if we say MAYC&BAYC are 3x as valuable as deeds&kodas (weight wise at voting due to the supply differences), the gap is still perhaps 12x in favour of deeds&kodas? - Need some data, but can’t be far off.)

Following. LFG.

2 Likes
8

This proposal is very useful for us, but Koda is too high voting power. Cause the prcie is different right, increase BAYC & MAYC voting power or decrease Koda power.
:pray:t2:

1 Like
9

I am FOR getting Yuga asset holders a stronger voice in the DAO.

I am FOR the formation of more delegations to balance the voting structure in the DAO so that more voices can be heard.

I’m not sure I am for the proposal as written though.

A few thoughts:

  • The Moca vote was funded by Yat and Animoca. I understand having another vote funded by an outside source (in this case the DAO) matches, but does that run the risk of now creating a similar issue where a few individuals in the Yuga ecosystem can control the DAO without ever having purchased a single $APE?

  • I’d like to see a deeper analysis on the amounts. I don’t think Yuga holders should be able to come in and completely take over, but have an equal, sizable share of voice. In the same way we don’t want a single delegation to dominate the vote today, I don’t think we want that in the future either.

  • What becomes of the current BAYC/MAYC delegations (Elite Apes, UK Apes, Bored Canada, etc). Would these delegations of Ape owners also continue to vote? Again, this could tip the balance too much and should be considered in the total amount.

  • Should the requirement to participate in the delegation be more than just NFT ownership? I would like to see something like NFT ownership + some amount of delegated $APE to the delegation, so we can ensure the people who vote have some skin in the game in the DAO.

  • Agree with the earlier point on voting power of BAYC/MAYC vs Otherside holders. Voting power should be proportionate to current FPs IMO.

Appreciate the authors bringing this forward. I think there is a solution somewhere here, and I’m more than willing to help whoever is willing work through these details and/or campaign if we can get to a proposal we can all get behind.

4 Likes
10

I don’t think that Yuga assets should have any voting preference because that’s not how we establish and retain equality. That’s why my proposal doesn’t make any such distinctions, thus making it an equal vote for all.

2 Likes
12

I agree that the proposal should be adjusted to better reflect actual prices, as Otherdeed holders would otherwise have disproportionate voting power compared to BAYC holders, based on the invested amounts. Adjusting these numbers would make the proposal rock-solid. Yuga asset holders would act in the best interest of ApeCoin, and implementing it this way ensures it is 100% Sybil-proof, unlike some other ideas out there. Great job :muscle:

1 Like
13

I like the general idea of this proposal, however there’s some room for exploits here. Biggest one I see is that Yuga Labs launch partners got thousands of Otherdeeds & Kodas:

  • Animoca brands holds 1709 Otherdeeds and 189 Kodas
  • Horizen Labs holds 500 Otherdeeds and 54 Kodas

This could potentially give these two voters a direct line to another 6.9M ApeCoin to vote with. Based on this I would limit the ApeCoin delegation to BAYC/MAYC only and get rid of Otherside delegation.

5 Likes
14

@yatsiu - Can you commit to increasing MOCA delegation to match please.

We had discussions before on this topic in both public and private and I feel your views are needed on this post.

Maybe your wisdom can help here.

Thanks.

17

This changes nothing, the outcome will be same since the people with $ape has Bored Apes and Mutants as well, its just creating extra steps to votes. Right now those who have $ape, Moca, JRNY NFT; they voting at 3 different places and with this it’ll just be 2 extra delegation voting with the same results.

If Bored Apes outside of DAO wanted to be involved they would have involved already, but they clearly see what horrible show is happening here in the DAO and they keep their distance.

P.S. Funny how this is yet another idea that came out from a community member but words and author are changed. Sad part is that it will still passed but previous ones were ignored

18

Hi @furiousanger if this were to happen we would probably match but it may also make sense to delegate to other groups too.

3 Likes
19

Yup. And then we have another [wallet] arms race which brings us right back here.

2 Likes
20

Out of curiosity what would the justification be for increasing Mocas voting block further?

This proposal spreads 13.8 million votes across 2 voting blocks and 140,000 NFT’s. Mocaverse
is currently 6.3 million votes controlled by 8,888 NFTs.

Moca would already have one of the largest voices within the Otherside Block due to their Deed Bag so increasing it more just to put 140,000 Ape, Deed, and Kodas in check seems unnecessary.

4 Likes
21

@Gerry I am responding to @furiousanger question in the event that it might happen. The Otherdeed bag does not belong to Mocaverse, it belongs to Animoca Brands (same with the Apecoin). It is still our choice to delegate it so it is by no means confirmed that Mocaverse would have an Otherside block at this moment in time.

1 Like
22

Hi @Gerry ,

The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in less than 24 hours.

  • If you’re content with the feedback received, your next steps are to finalize your proposal using the AIP Draft Template.

  • A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft. Upon receipt of the final Draft, we will review and provide instructions on the next steps.

  • Are you ready to proceed to the next phase or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?

We look forward to hearing from you.

-@Facilitators

23

This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.