I love this idea. Keeps it equitable for everyone involved.
3 Likes
I posted this elsewhere, however here are my concerns when it comes to staking, caps, and tiered pools.
Iâm not so certain caps or even staking pools set aside for holders of BAYC/MAYC/BAKC are even fair for $ape token holders as a whole. When this DAO was created, BAYC and MAYC members controlled 100% of the tokens, thus controlled 100% of the DAO. As people sold their tokens to non BAYC/MAYC/BAKC members, they sold their voting power. To implement caps and staking pools centered around holding Apes in oneâs wallet, is in my opinion being used to boost the floor prices of BAYC/MAYC/BAKC, thus devaluing the purpose of holding onto or buying $ape, and devaluing the purpose of a DAO.
When the initial claim happened, BAYC holders received 5 times the number of tokens that MAYC holders received, if everyone held and staked, BAYC members would receive 5 times the staking rewards and would end up with 5 times the control of the DAO. If an MAYC or BAKC holder purchased $ape from an exchange and staked, they will lose more and more power as staking progresses with limits imposed. Whatâs the fairness in that?
At this point, I believe that there should not be tiered staking levels or caps. If you bought more $ape you shouldnât be punished. If you donât hold a BAYC/MAYC/BAKC but purchased $ape, you shouldnât be punished. We should reward those that believe in the DAO and have purchased $ape from those that sold.
5 Likes
I only own oneape. Thatâs how Iâm here 
5 Likes
One APE = One APE, this is how it should remain.
3 Likes
From what Iâm understanding, you can vote âYESâ for staking, we may then submit a new proposal of âstaking capâ per pool.
We can either amend for shorter period of time until stake initiation (rather than 16-20 weeks we aim for 4-8 weeks-**What is most important to me here is more the safety of staking/absolutely minimizing risk vs. timeframe).
My question now is, are people voting âNOâ b/c they would rather see the amendments clearly define cap #'s rather than submit new proposal? Is there fear in voting âYESâ and NOT being able to submit a new proposals defining caps? If so, why?
I think this is a very smart approach that allows for staking to proceed while concluding a discussion on what the NFT caps may be as AIP-4 needs an AIP-5 or a revised AIP provided that the majority likes the approach of AIP-4 (with caps). In terms of approach it would require for AIP-5 to fail and be replaced with the caps added as an amendment.
5 Likes
I like the general approach, one thought would be to offer a range where you could offer 2x the drop amount per NFT on the assumption that not every NFT holder may stake all their respective ape. In general given that the community will feel very passionate about the proposed caps it may also make sense to hold a community vote on the caps themselves. @mg suggestion would allow for more discussion to take place on how the caps would take place while allowing for staking development to begin.
3 Likes
@mg @yatsiu @Garga 2x seems reasonable. I want to raise another topic: I vacillate on the soft-staking (at any level of rewards) concept.
I cannot see the DAO thriving without BAYC/MAYC members buying merch, cheerleading on NFT Twitter, attending DAO organized events, and generally speaking, caring about the direction of the DAO bc it is beneficial to them. Nobody cares about ape brand integrity and success like the members of the BAYC/MAYC. Literally the coin is named after the the casual name for all BAYC/MAYC owners âApeâ and its guiding value (i.e. spirit) is pulled right out of our discord â1 Ape = 1 Apeâ.
I also canât see non-BAYC/MAYC owners, even if they owned ApeCoin, ever caring as much about the ApeDAO, events, merch and IP. as BAYC/MAYC owners.
Garga and many others make very fair points about why soft-staking is not the right path for the DAO. Garga makes the salient point that we must do what is in the spirit of the DAO. We want to incentivize and encourage participation by BAYC/MAYC but expect them to value the health of the DAO in return. That is, not just take their coins, swap them for eth and wash their hands. I tend to think soft-staking can fit into this criteria if thoughtfully executed.
I can see even just a minimal reward going a long way to incentive and encourage participation by the BAYC/MAYC community. Newcomers can earn a little $APE, stake that $APE for those juicy rewards, and learn the joys of participating in the DAO. Anyway, food for thought, if apes donât want to participate and look out for the DAO, we can always change it later.
4 Likes
As mentioned in other posts, I bought my MAYC after the airdrop, donât have a large position of $APE as expected to passively earn $APE via staking the NFT only, BUT after reading through everyoneâs posts I appreciate the need to stake $APE alongside the NFT for the success of $APE and the DAO.
I think nearly all agree a cap limit to what was initially allocated to the NFT is fair and works, if left unlimited or even 2x the cap it would mean a significant investment would be required to join the NFT only staking pool to receive their full allocation for brand new NFT holders.
Lastly and quite important IMO, we all see the volume of BAYC MAYC and BAKC sales every day, it is wrong to assume every current holder of the NFTs was the owner who was airdropped the allocation of $APE, many donât and it is unfair to assume that as the base case for every decision the DAO makes in regards to its interaction with the NFT holders now and moving forward.
5 Likes
@mg @yatsiu @garga Dear All, I believe a cap anything between 1x and 2x what has been airdropped to each NFT will be considered fair to the community, considered that not all apes/kennels will be staked thus everyone should receive a satisfactory return on the NFT price (and on the APE amount staked). There is not an absolute right or wrong in here, but in this range you guarantee that BAYC members are committed into the DAO (ppl who didnât dump the coin) and at the same time doesnât require a huge amount of investment.
best regards
I believe the math works out such that everyone in a particular NFT pool, regardless of the amount staked, receives the same equal % return per $APE staked over the same time period. No minimum $APE necessary. It is just that the more $APE is staked collectively in total, the lower the APR to each staker. Someone correct me if wrong but this is how the numbers worked out when I ran it. Some may think small stakers would earn a lower yield vs large whale stakers in the same pool but this is not the case. Everyone gets the same return.
2 Likes
Thank you for your thoughts. While I cannot speak to everything that may happen for BAYC/MAYC holders which is really for Yuga Labs to answer $APE is merely the beginning of expanding the universe in its own right while preserving the essence of its BAYC roots. In other words owning a BAYC may likely entitle you to benefits that are not going to be the same as those who only hold $APE such as how BAYC holders received MAYC or BAKC. Ways to earn $APE will also come from $APE specific initiatives such as https://dappradar.com/blog/bored-apes-play-to-earn-ape-on-benji-bananas
5 Likes
If everyone gets the same return, whatâs the point of buying a large amount of DAO tokens to stake? We would be removing a fairly sizeable amount of demand from $ape. If this ideology ends up dominating future proposals, I will not be locking up any $ape to stake myself, as the risk will far outweigh the potential rewards as $ape inflation occurs over time.
Everyone gets the same pro rata return. Therefore if you stake more, you get more tokens.
Why should we incentivize $APE whales with a higher rate than others?
4 Likes
If the cap was 2x what was dropped, would I not need to come up with the same amount of $APE required to maximize the amount of $APE I would get back in return? This seems to favour people who have more disposable income to add to their staking. I would prefer something that that is either equal to what we received or slightly lower.
2 Likes
We are going in circles. Yeah it is important to discuss pools, caps and stuff but the core problem is that this conception of the staking is totally wrong.
So you stake your tokens (owning or not a BAYC) and receive $APE, without lock up, keeping your vote power, and with absolutely nothing to commit. This way we are just giving for free the $APE and no cap or BAYC cant stop the people to game the system and earn a big junk of $APES without deserving it or commiting something to the DAO.
We have to tie any kind of $APE incentives with a sort of rights and duties. We have to implement the veToken system to our DAO and give rewards that way. Later we will discuss how the ownership of BAYC can be a multiplier to get more direct emissions but first we need to dismiss this old stake system that they are proposing.
1 Like
Vote Escrowed tokens have their downsides too. And in this particular group given how $APE was given out, it might actually be an outright bad outcome.
More here:
NFT / $APE whales may stake a ton, and then gather a bunch of voting power, and would simply commandeer control of the DAO.
2 Likes
Thatâs a good point whales have a higher tolerance to lock-up a proportion of their already large voting power to get even more voting power. Doesnât sound like a good idea.
1 Like
Whales will always have and advantage, right now they just have to market buy $APE. At least with veToken their are locking their tokens and commiting their earns to the success of the DAO. Because what is the other option? a farming pool that give $APEs for free with no time based lockup where you can stake/unstake whenever you want?