AIP-517: Our locked $ape tokens need protection

Withdrawn AIPs
1

PROPOSAL NAME:

Guidelines for our locked $ape tokens.

TEAM DESCRIPTION:

Furious - English ape & DAO believer. OG apecoin holder & forum member championing fairness & integrity since March 2022. Crypto since 2017. NFTs since 2021. UKapeclub delegation member.

Twitter - @furiousanger
Discord - @furiousanger

PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION:

Generally in crypto locked tokens become unlocked tokens trustlessly, as they’re held within a contract of incorruptible code. A predetermined unlock schedule dictating the quantities released into circulating supply, and the frequency.

Unfortunately our DAO lacks this kind of automation outlined above, meaning our locked $ape tokens are only “locked” in words and by trust.

As a preventative measure to ensure our locked tokens are not moved or spent until the conditions for unlocking are met, it is imperative we create unambiguous guidelines using simple language; mirroring a robust & trustless system:

This AIP prevents the use of locked $ape tokens for any purposes including (but not limited to) the following:

1. Spending.
2. Transferring.
3. Voting.
4. Earning.
5. Borrowing.

BENEFIT TO APECOIN ECOSYSTEM:

Maintaining confidence in our reputation and $ape value.

Safeguarding $ape investors and holders.

Removing unnecessary security threats, potentially resulting in the permanent loss of treasury funds.

DEFINITIONS:

Locked $ape token: A token which is not due to enter circulation, must never be spent, and cannot be transferred.

Unlocked $ape token: A token which is in circulation and can be used, eg. spent and/or transferred.

$ape unlock schedule: Details predetermined before token launch outlining when, and in what quantities, tokens enter circulation and become useable.

STEPS TO IMPLEMENT:

The new guidance will be adhered to by all concerned parties upon passing.

REPORTING EXPECTATIONS:

Although the expectation is that this proposal would be implemented by the DAO’s administrative team, the community should also regularly review the impact of process proposals. If accepted, the community should review the impact of the updates after the 3-month period for conflict ends.

OVERALL COST:

Total amount requested from the ApeCoin Ecosystem Fund = 0 $ape

3

So, like, we lock it up, forever? Forever-ever?

2 Likes
4

Hi mate,

So there’s a predetermined schedule which sees locked tokens become unlocked tokens.

Unfortunately, the process is not automated and the foundation could actually spend locked tokens if they so wished.

Our locked tokens unlock at a rate of around 7.3m $ape a month. This is set to continue until march 2026.

Fun fact - really the only funds the treasury has left are locked tokens - we have spent and allocated the rest already.

A locked token should never be put at risk. Risk being they could be sold.

The foundation serve us - they are people who we all elected and voted into these roles - and sometimes they get it wrong, this is yet another one of those occasions.

My simple AIP is that locked tokens will remain locked - cannot be used for any purposes - when they becomes unlocked tokens the above would be non applicable.

Thanks.

5

I think you need to be more specific. You are talking about tokens locked and in the direct Control of the Cayman Foundation.

For example, GWG has over 10 wallets we use for delegating as part of the Delegate Accelerator, but these are under the GWG non profit and not the Cayman Foundation.

1 Like
7

I want to put a stop to special treatment being afforded to certain people.

Every AIP should be treated equally.

The 69% threshold must be applied to any AIP spending or allocating $ape over $250k.

No special or new rules for anyone.

Only way to address this issue currently is to stop the method in which they are circumventing the application of the 69% threshold for certain AIPs. It’s not fair and it’s not right.

This is the foundation dictating their new setup - they simply use the words “locked tokens”. But if you have some suggestions please add them as I do feel this needs to be done.
IMG_0734

8

Do you have an example of when this has actually happened? You’re not talking about this discussion Facilitator Note #20 : Apes Gotta’ Eat are you?

That’s the current standard.

As I previously explained, spending and allocating are being used interchangeably. The AIP was clear and the APE Foundation has now ratified the notion that tokens that don’t get removed from the treasury by way of spending, can be delegated as a “no cost” proposal.

Thus far, only two proposals and one discussion (not a proposal) have gone down this route:

07/03/24: AIP-489: Restoring Balance - 13.6M / FAILED 08/28/24
06/24/24: AIP-474: Delegated ApeCoin Community Voting Wallet - 15M / FAILED 08/28/24
03/03/24: REDRESSING THE BALANCE - APE FOUNDATION will delegate 6.3million $APE to a community VOTING wallet

How is it being circumvented? And by whom?

Tokens are locked (from spending) until they need to be spent. And so, whether or not they are actually spent (paid out) or delegated (moved to a voting wallet), they need to be unlocked. Am I missing something?

9

We’ve had these discussions so not gonna go over it all again.

In regards to this AIP locked tokens will not be available for usage for any purposes whatsoever by the foundation.

This will ensure tokens are never put at risk of being sold or lost before they become unlocked. Which is what can happen when you start transferring tokens into self custody options.

Thanks.

10

Yes - I fully understand that. But all tokens that aren’t spent are still locked until they are ready to be spent. e.g. an AIP that needs to be funded needs tokens to be unlocked and then either converted to USDC or given as $ape to the authors. And so, the same applies to delegated tokens which are unlocked and moved to another wallet - but not spent. In both cases tokens are unlocked for use.

1 Like
11

Yes that’ll be fine. If the tokens are unlocked and used for delegation I have no problem with that. In that instance the 69% threshold would be applied as ecosystem funds would have to be set aside. This is exactly the outcome I am looking for.

1 Like
12

Yup - I am well aware. However, I don’t see what problem you’re trying to solve because the 69% threshold for funding over $250K will still hold true if the Foundation decides to reverse (again) its guidance that delegated tokens are now at cost.

I still maintain that delegate tokens which aren’t ever spent shouldn’t be regarded as “at cost” just because they moved from one wallet to another. The funds weren’t being used, they weren’t allocated for anything and nor were they earmarked.

1 Like
13

I just think it’s a slippery slope once locked tokens are fair game for usage of any kind.

Could we see borrowing against them at some stage justified? Or even lending?

Then there’s also the risk - to delegate an $ape token you need to have a self custody wallet - and there’s so many potential things that could go wrong with transferring & holding multiple millions of $ape in a self custody option.

We pay hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to coinbase just because we don’t want to be doing that and taking those risks.

I just think messing with locked tokens is far too dangerous and unnecessary. Why should we take such risks - just so that certain AIPs don’t have to have the 69% threshold applied. :man_shrugging:

Great discussion as always. :handshake::handshake:

14

But all the tokens are locked. Then unlocked when they are about to be spent. So, I don’t quite understand what the point there is about them being locked and should stay locked. What am I missing?

Why not? I could literally write up a proposal asking for a loan from the DAO. What’s the worst that could happen? 1) the APE Foundation rejects it, since the DAO is not in the lending business 2) by some fluke it makes it to vote and the members handily vote it down.

Yes, there are risks; but how are other delegated wallets any more secure than one with a multi-sig?

The only proposals which would not be subject to AIP-436 as per 69% threshold are those that request funds for a delegated wallet. There’s no loophole that I can see.

15

Almost all definitions of what a locked token is includes the words “cannot be transferred”.

And then of course if a locked token is stolen and gets immediately market dumped it is no longer a locked token. Wrecking traders who’s DD on $ape token before investing would have included unlock schedules.

Tl;dr - locked tokens should never be transferred unless there’s a security threat & if a locked token is sold it immediately becomes an unlocked token.

IMG_0736

16

That’s not relevant though. Just because a definition of ‘locked’ exists doesn’t somehow mean that tokens locked into a vault - in this case our DAO treasury - are somehow not subject to be unlocked. I mean, seriously, how is that even a thing? What if the DAO needs to pay its bills, AIP payments due etc? Then what? They don’t get disbursed because somehow tokens in the treasury are locked and cannot be touched?

This is our treasury, there is no special location for locked v unlocked tokens. They are in various wallets.

17

We’re rewriting definitions of terms now. Next will be words.

So you’re suggesting that just because the tokens are not locked within a contract and can be spent at any time they can be if certain bills arise. :person_facepalming:

So this is exactly why I’m writing this AIP - so that a locked token can never be used - especially to pay a bill.

I think we’re going around in circles. You believe locked tokens should be fair game as they’re only locked by good faith and not in reality; and if the right conditions arise spending them is ok. And I believe exactly the opposite - a locked token must always follow the industry standard of what a locked token is defined as; these tokens must only become unlocked when the predetermined schedule dictates, and under no circumstances is it okay to be spending them.

Thanks as always.

18

Words and definitions come with context. Here, the context of “locked” is improperly applied because you’re using it within the context of “locked tokens cannot be unlocked”, while using that as justification for why tokens should never be moved - let alone spent - because they’re locked. Don’t you see the problem in that argument?

I get that; but good luck getting that past admin review because my guess is that such a proposal to somehow lockup funds that the DAO needs will be frowned upon as it would literally go against the well-being of the DAO. And oh, I’m currently having an argument over here in AIP-467 which is going through admin review.

I don’t believe that we’re going around in circles. I believe that you’re holding a myopic view of how “locked” is applied in the context of our treasury; and you have thus far failed to address the vary salient point, that being if we locked the treasure tokens how is the DAO going to pay its bills, fund proposals etc. And at the same time, you’re over at 16.9million $ape will be sold to TL2 members - 75% discount applied - FIRE SALE! advocating to sell 16.9M of those very same tokens at a discount.

19

We must always observe the rules. You’re trying to make out it’s some idealistic view - it’s what we pay the administrators $900k a year for - to make sure they are not approving AIPs that will wreck us.

The point where you say I’m advocating to spend locked tokens because the AIP requests 16.9m is absolute nonsense.

Problem also arises that if we do not follow the unlock schedule (because we can bend the rules), then what about the others who are bound by the schedule (see image below)? So they’ll have to stick to the schedule, but the DAO has special privileges to disregard, as we have bills to pay? :man_facepalming:

IMG_0737

Thanks as always for giving me hard time. Goodnight mate. :handshake::blue_heart:

1 Like
20

Yes. They made the rules. And they said that delegated tokens are at “no cost”. You’re asking them to change the rules by not using tokens at all - because you claim they are locked and shouldn’t be touched at all. You see the discrepancy there?

erm, wot? You’re saying that the tokens are locked and shouldn’t be spent. But then you’re asking for us to sell those very same tokens at a discount. Which part is “absolute nonsense”?

You still have yet to show why you believe locked tokens - which abide by an unlock schedule - are somehow unlocked for other reasons.

You still have yet to show any evidence of locked tokens being used for anything - let alone to pay a bill.

Nobody is advocating for locked tokens to be unlocked without reason. This whole discussion, starting with your opinions in the other thread as it relates to delegated tokens, started with your objections about tokens being moved from one wallet to another. Your argument is that those [locked] tokens are somehow part of the “locked” (as per unlock schedules) stash and not just “locked” in a wallet while waiting to be allocated and or disbursed.

You see now why I keep going on about context?

21

A lot of discussion for a simple AIP, and I gotta say, I like th discussion.

2 Likes
22

I think we’ve exhausted both sides of the argument - which is great - as those who read have lots of information to digest. :handshake::handshake:

Conclusion:

“Locked” $ape tokens should never be used and/or put at risk as this goes against what we all know a “locked token” to be (industry standard), and could lead to the circulating supply increasing prematurely.

$ape tokens become “unlocked” based on a predetermined schedule which was set out before our TGE (launch).

If “locked tokens” are used - example being delegation - we add additional risk at every stage of the transfer and self custody processes which are required to facilitate this usage case.

Fundamentally $ape price relies upon adhering to our unlock schedule; if not we risk wrecking investors, holders, our own reputations and $ape price all in one go.

The foundation is not infallible.

LFG. :handshake::handshake: