I’m not opposed to time locks and vesting at all.
I’m opposed to increasing voting power.
Whales are the most likely to stake a lot and for a long time because they don’t have as much a need for liquidity. They’d also dramatically increased power vs other proposals by having more votes.
If we can construct a staking mechanism that involves time locks, but not extra votes, I’m open to supporting it.
Yep you are right, maybe the ideal solution would be a veToken economy with a maximum voting cap determined by how many BAYC/MAYC NFTs you own.
This way whales just cant accumulate voting power if holders dont sell their NFT. Im just thinking out loud. The only thing I know for sure is that the proposed staking solution dont give value to the $APE ecosystem and just give tokens for free.
I could rally pretty much anywhere in a 1-3x range of the drop. Not more than that. Within that range, I don’t have a strong opinion and I think that the spirit of the community feedback would be broadly represented.
Galligan…I thought about this a lot…is it a foolish idea that one owner gets only one vote no matter how many ape they own…or what are the downsides of that?
Thanks
While it may seem like it may be a good way to level the playing field for folks who aren’t whales, unfortunately it doesn’t end up working out that way.
DAO voting is definitely really sticky subject.
agree exactly with this point, should be at worst the same amount airdropped, and actually, be a lot better for the majority of BAYC NFT holders if slightly lower. If any $ape whale has more $ape to stake they can move that capital into the $ape only staking pool. There are a few vocal $ape whales who also own the NFTs who want unlimited staking in the favourable BAYC nft pools, essentially having their cake and eating it too.
Galligan, thanks for your response.
I have heard of this type of atack before. However a simple use of google authenticator(or the like) would prohibit this. These types of attacks mainly effect servers, not wallets that are linked to voting.
I do not see how this disincentives a whale, other than it keeps them from rug pull and controlling other peoples money along with their own. (In this more coin more votes method there is no true decentralization)
If a whale would like to set up 1,000,000 wallet accounts, and then login 1,000,000 separate times with an authenticator, in order to vote…
Seems impractical
I think any decent security would notice this
(as well as members). Also, this would be
noticable if every voting is audited for such
irregularities
My point here I guess is that I think we should do something different, novel and set a new standard that breaks the mold.
Only one vote per ape holder with authentication has many more upsides than keeping the " corporate structure" of a modern centralized entity.
These are my thoughts…there maybe other downsides not mentioned…
I hate to say it, but this is a really common attack in crypto, and especially so for things like voting, staking, and airdrop farming. It’s an entire field of research in crypto, and some of the smartest minds (including Vitalik) have spent a lot of time on it. See here: Topics tagged sybil-attack
And Google Authenticator or other anti-sybil approaches commonly used in non-crypto tech cannot apply to crypto.
This is relatively straightforward in the crypto world with wallets and signatures, where bot farms are spun up to do exactly this. That is, save for the authenticator piece, which isn’t relevant in crypto.
It is fundamentally broken that someone with 2 $APE has the same voting power as someone with 100,000 $APE. Skin in the game does not apply well, which has inevitable long-tail risks associated.
I think we should find a standard that is meritocratic instead of capitalistic, but absolute democracy isn’t noble(each $APE holder gets one vote) at all which will turn into ochlocracy, the mob rule. Regardless of the Sybil attack, groupthink is moderately rational at best and irrational and unaccountable at worst.
A good delegation structure would solve this. We can create a senate structure where the persuasive community members would accumulate power under public scrutiny on weekly basis and gather the votes of others.
I am working on a proposed structure that features this, and I’d love community members to join the discussion once the topic is aired.
Couldn’t agree more. Thankfully that’s not how it is now, and unless a passed proposal changes that, it won’t happen. I don’t see something like this passing given some of the whales out there.
Thankfully it already works like this, and can happen right now with no additional proposals!
There are a number of delegates already present in the ApeCoin Snapshot: https://snapshot.org/#/delegate/apecoin.eth
So, if someone so chose to, they could include galligan.eth (my wallet) and delegate their votes to me, or anyone else they’d care to.
We would perhaps do well to have a place where people can campaign, similar to how ENS did it with their application right within their forum. See here
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.