Agreed, there should be clarity in writing on the proposal for each pool’s max cap minus the $APE pool.
@0xNameLess Has there been any discussion already on what the cap should be? Seems there is broad agreement that just setting a cap is the best way to move forward but haven’t seen any discussion on what that exact cap amount should be.
1 Like
There hasn’t, 0 clarity from the board but speculation from many of us. Max cap needs to have a balance, 0 cap would give total control to whales, voting on a balanced cap would be the best way forward.
Personally 5k-10k Cap seems fair, but people are asking for 100-1000 or 25-50k as well. Think it needs to come to a vote and an official amendment with written language in AIP-4 / AIP-5 to move forward.
2 Likes
AIP-6 Staking for the Community
Please feel free to edit or contribute: AIP-6 Staking for the Community - Google Docs
@foolofape no discussion on caps from what I could see. I assume as both AIP-4 and AIP-5 won’t be passed based on current voting rates, therefore animoca will have to amend their proposal to incorporate some of the feedback from the DAO members and then present both again for another vote. This is a good thing as these five initial AIP’s are the foundations of this DAO and we should ponder and deliberate before making a move.
My personal take on this is very similar to what was presented by one of the Yuga founders, which is that the present AIP’s are largely fine however the subject AIP’s should be amended to add what was already presented by Yat Siu (and as linked by @PPMan above), but also add clarity to the max @apecoin cap per NFT (pool 2, 3 and 4) as mentioned by a few already.
Although I am a MAYC holder I am also against NFT’s from naturally accruing @apecoin as not only did NFT holders already get @apecoin allocation we also get the benefit of accessing a special staking pool, a benefit that also new NFT holders get to access.
There is an argument that new NFT holders should be included in the DAO, although I see the argument for inclusivity the counter to that is you can join this DAO by purchasing only a single @apecoin. Furthermore not every @apecoin holder or NFT holder wants to get involved in the DAO, we can see this from the number of voters and the number of the coins in each of the AIP votes.
5 Likes
It is undeniable that bayc is the cornerstone of apecoin. If you only hold one NFT but use apecoin unlimitedly, it will make a lot of people abandon bayc and make the whole apecoin go down, which is unhealthy.
apecoin and NFT are one, it is hard to imagine if bayc NFT is abandoned by everyone, but apecoin is very popular, it is impossible
1 Like
There have been a ton of value drivers engineered for BAYC holders and more to come. I don’t think we need to architect incentives that encourage individual hoarding of the collection. IMO the more distributed the collection, the more collective strength.
3 Likes
I think the NFT holders already received their benefit - which was 10k $ape. From there forward it should be equal footing.
6 Likes
Yes totally agree that the max cap needs a balance and I think this needs to be carefully thought out. I had in mind as well that around 10k might be a good number as this is what every BAYC holder had to start and would be most neutral. However the more I think about it, the more I realize things are not that simple and this could be a lot more complicated than it is and would have broad implications for the entire ecosystem. I feel that tokenomics experts need to chime in on this one and give their recommendation because a lot of people (myself included) probably just don’t have a clue. Zero or too low of a cap would essentially be the same as NFT-only soft staking, and setting too low of a cap would most certainly cause dumping of $APE coins by NFT holders and disincentive new $APE holders from participating, tanking $APE price which could turn into a downward spiral. A higher cap even past 10k, may actually be beneficial overall (even though it would be dilutive to some poorer BAYC NFT holders who can’t afford to stake more $APE) as it provides increased price support and new liquidity infusion into the system. And I feel like if I had to choose and er in one direction, I would rather er on the side of having more new liquidity come into $APE.
2 Likes
Update recently posted by Yat Siu
Thanks. Completely agree with all your takes. As I mentioned in a previous post AIP-5 Staking Proposal - Discussion - #30 by foolofape I feel like the tokenomics experts need to come in and give a recommendation because the exact max cap may actually be a very crucial key variable in controlling $APE supply liquidity (it is essentially akin to setting interest rates of $APE) in the entire ecosystem which could have broad ramifications.
How do we vote on the initial token allocation?
I mean this allocation -
62%
ECOSYSTEM FUND
BAYC/MAYC NFT holders and treasury/resources
150,000,000 tokens to BAYC/MAYC
All unlocked for claim at launch
470,000,000 tokens to DAO treasury and resources
117,500,000 unlocked at launch, then 7,343,750 unlocked per month for 48 months
16%*
YUGA LABS + CHARITY
The company behind BAYC and continuing contributor
*6.25% worth of Yuga Labs holdings are being donated to the Jane Goodall Legacy Foundation.
150,000,000 tokens to Yuga Labs
Initial lock-up 12 months, then 4,166,666.67 unlocked per month for 36 months
10,000,000 tokens or equal value donated to the Jane Goodall Legacy Foundation
Initial lock-up 12 months, then 277,777.78 tokens unlocked per month for 36 months
14%
LAUNCH CONTRIBUTORS
The companies and people that helped make this project a reality
140,000,000 tokens to launch contributors. Lockup schedules vary by contributor but fall into one of the following:
• 10,000,000 tokens upfront, 25,000,000 after 6 months, 25,000,000 after 12 months, and 25,000,000 after 18 months
• Initial lock-up for 12 months, then 757,575.76 unlocked per month for 33 months
• Initial lock-up for 12 months, then 833,333.33 unlocked per month for 36 months
8%
BAYC FOUNDERS
The ones who put the Ape in ApeCoin, the four founders of Yuga Labs and BAYC
80,000,000 tokens to founders of Yuga Labs
Initial lock-up for 12 months, then 2,222,222.22 unlocked per month for 36 months
1 Like
While how individuals vote probably doesn’t warrant a post every time, I felt it was super important to call out the reasons I’m voting FOR AIP-4 and AGAINST AIP-5 because I’m seeing the two conflated a bunch.
We’ve seen it in other threads that there’s a direct connection people are making between 4 and 5, but the purposes of each are different, and shouldn’t be conflated.
YES on AIP-4
Put simply, AIP-4 is just about the staking process and nothing more. What they’re proposing with the ApeCoin staking mechanism is actually pretty novel.
While most staking solutions have just one pool, AIP-4 proposes that there are separate incentivized pools for each type of asset ($APE-only, BAYC, MAYC, BAKC). With each pool being separated, the incentive structure for each can be adjusted. Therefore it’s possible to reward owners of specific assets differently with different rewards.
BAYC > MAYC > BAKC > $APE would be possible
A YES vote on this proposal is essentially saying that you’re agreeing to adopt a staking mechanism where specific assets can set up specific incentive mechanisms. Personally I’m an emphatic HELL YES on this, and I’m biased, because I’ve held my BAYC #3073 since mint.
A NO vote on this proposal is saying that you don’t like this structure. The risk here is that the staking mechanism goes to a simple staked $APE structure with no asset-specific incentivized pools. Most of the disagreement I see in AIP-5 is tied to people that believe their long-held assets are rewarded properly. Voting NO on AIP-4 would actually put that in jeopardy.
NO on AIP-5
I LOVE what’s proposed in AIP-5 and think that it’s absolutely the way that we should go. I didn’t, however, like the idea that one could just take their BAYC, stake all their $APE in that pool, and reap the greatest reward. As was mentioned above, it appears as though this wouldn’t be the case:
However, I’m voting NO because an explicit and well-defined cap hasn’t been established yet. In my opinion the cap numbers should be included directly in the proposal.
We have seen an update posted here that calls out a forthcoming amendment should AIP-5 pass:
the Staking Amendment Proposal will propose that the quantity of ApeCoin staked is capped per NFT rather than per wallet for holders of BAYC ecosystem NFTs. This allows for holders of multiple BAYC ecosystem NFTs to stake more ApeCoin, which I believe will benefit the APE ecosystem and community.
Unfortunately though the caps still aren’t well defined, and it does feel like that’s a prerequisite to move forward.
I believe that @btang should re-write AIP-5 with these caps well-defined and included, and re-submit because then I’d be a FOR instead of AGAINST on this proposal.
Anyone else splitting their vote like this?
7 Likes
Please feel free to contribute comments here, let’s write this as a community: AIP-6 Staking for the Community - Google Docs
1 Like
We should start discussing what the cap should be or at least kicking around ideas. I am in agreement soft NFT staking is not beneficial for APE long term and probably just not deserved. BAYC/MAYC will get drops and club membership and Yuga will make their own incentives to buy and hold an ape.
For the cap, we’re looking to balance the little fish and the big whale. Considering the ratios put into place, and how they track the drop ratios (also the floor ratios), it makes sense to work in those constraints rather than reinvent the wheel.
Why not simply make the cap what the drop was? You make or buy more APE, you battle it out in the APECoin pool. This gives each ape the ability to stake a full amount of their drop and disincentivizes BAYC that might be holding 10K+ $APE from attributing it to their MAYC and squeezing out benefits for MAYC. @yatsiu @btang – would love to hear your thoughts, perhaps in a brand new post, soon.
5 Likes
The coin emissions or initial coin allocation is not part of any of the AIP’s.
@foolofape as the ApeCoin airdrop amount to each BAYC / MAYC and BAKC was actually intended for staking, I assume the amounts was assessed by experts already therefore I do not believe we have to re-invent the wheel here and just adopt the airdrop amounts as the max caps for each respective NFT. Any deviation from this amount may impact NFT prices.
2 Likes
I’m attempting to start a new thread specifically to discuss the Caps, which seems to be the primary issue.
One APE equals one APE.
So defines Equality, a core value of this DAO and a principle we should never lose sight of as this community grows.
But what is this community? Is it a group of BAYC/MAYC NFT owners and Yuga Labs employees and insiders, or is it something else, something larger, something that has not yet taken shape because we are still forming it and working through old modes of existence? I would argue the latter, as this DAO clearly states that the only requirement for membership is the holding of ApeCoin, which a genesis benefit rightly conferred to the individuals who made this DAO possible, but a requirement that seems to point to a new and unique set of members, goals, and incentives that are centered around an independent framework for governance, equality, and value creation.
We must recognize that, despite current member makeup and voting power, APE is not BAYC/MAYC/Yuga, and for this DAO to succeed as an independent organization, and for ApeCoin to truly thrive as a universal token across the NFT and broader crypto ecosystems, we must make the difficult and necessary decision to decouple from any external assets and/or entities that would continue to provide a select few a cumulative advantage over new members to the APE community. If we do not, I fear this community will grow to mirror the same systemic disadvantages we see in the world today, an outcome that surely doesn’t align with the proposed ethos of this organization and the web3 movement, and which will likely limit large-scale adoption and growth of ApeCoin.
My hope is that the above thinking will be considered for all future DAO decisions made moving forward, but in the present and as it relates to the process of staking, and more specifically to the consideration of AIP-4/5, I urge us all to consider a path in which ownership of BAYC/MAYC NFTs and any other assets external to this DAO do not impact governance or operations. As such, I feel there should be a singular and simplified staking model proposed, pool entry being predicated solely upon ownership of ApeCoin, the sole collateral being that of ApeCoin, and with universal terms for all members, including a cap on contribution limits, that would best promote equality across the APE community. If people want to directly stake or otherwise benefit from their BAYC/MAYC NFTs, by all means do it and do it with greatness, but don’t do it via this DAO, as that is not the core mission. The conversation on AIP-4/5 has been amazing and I hope this promotes continued debate.
Again, I feel BAYC/MAYC NFT owners and Yuga Labs employees and insiders have rightfully been rewarded great value and voting power as it relates to the formation of this DAO, and I hope that this value continues to grow and provide reward over time. However, it’s time to fork the incentive structure to better welcome new entrants. There is no reason we cannot grow multiple value streams in parallel, and there is no reason they cannot benefit from one another’s growth.
One APE equals one APE.
11 Likes