AIP-517: Our locked $ape tokens need protection

[furiousanger]

I’ve edited the AIP slightly and hopefully makes more sense.

I always feel the less words the better when it comes to AIPs - but maybe I’ll add in further explanations at some point - as context is king too ofc.

Thanks.

[SmartAPE]

@furiousanger

“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.

You still haven’t answered my earlier questions as to what evidence you have that suggests locked tokens were in fact being unlocked and used. And if you don’t have any, what leads you to believe that this will actually happen?

@furiousanger

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

If a “locked token” 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.

You have zero evidence to suggest that locked tokens are being unlocked for use in this or any other manner.

@furiousanger

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.

Agreed. But again, you have yet to show any evidence that shows they’re not adhering to this.

@furiousanger

The foundation is not infallible.

They are not; but accusing them of doing or planning to engage in inappropriate activity isn’t something that I support. We all have our ideas and opinions, and everyone knows that I’ve taken them to task over various issues - but with credible evidence to backup my consternation. Here, you are suggesting that they are either doing or planning to do something while not providing any evidence in any regard. I don’t agree with that, friend.

[furiousanger]

I’m pretty confident this simple worded AIP will pass as it protects all stakeholders. Up to the community now when gets to vote.

Thanks for your input.

[furiousanger]

@SmartAPE

zero evidence

I have taken this into account and promptly added in the words “preventative measure” to the AIP wording.

Thanks for that.

[SmartAPE]

@furiousanger

I’m pretty confident this simple worded AIP will pass as it protects all stakeholders. Up to the community now when gets to vote.

Thanks for your input.

Indeed. And your proposal is clear in its intent (which nobody is actually arguing about).

“As a preventative measure, to ensure our locked tokens are not being moved or spent until the conditions for unlocking are met, it is necessary to set out guidelines.”

But the confusion throughout this whole discussion is that we are being led to believe that something (unlocked tokens being unlocked and used) is actually happening when in fact it isn’t.

You made the same arguments regarding two voting wallet AIPs (AIP-474, AIP-489) which only served to create confusion because neither of those proposals implied that locked tokens would then be unlocked for use in a delegated manner.

And thus far, you have yet to explain how or why you believe that unlocked tokens were either being unlocked or likely to be unlocked for use in any specific manner.

Further, you said:

“This means locked tokens are only “locked” by words and trust. The administrators and foundation (possibly others) have access and control to these locked $ape tokens.”

This implies that if the Foundation cannot be trusted to keep locked tokens locked. Right. So what leads you to believe that a proposal passing is going to somehow prevent them from actually doing that anyway?

Also, you are aware that the Foundation has the singular authority to take whatever steps it deems necessary to protect the DAO. And so, a proposal like this - assuming that it even makes it past admin review - will undermine that because in times when the DAO needs funds, if it only has access to its own locked tokens, the Foundation would have no authority to unlock them.

Do you not see the can of worms here?

I will just leave it alone because we’re not getting anywhere.

[SmartAPE]

@furiousanger

I have taken this into account and promptly added in the words “preventative measure” to the AIP wording.

Thanks for that.

Outstanding. Now we’re on the same page in this regard.

[furiousanger]

@SmartAPE

This implies that if the Foundation cannot be trusted to keep locked tokens locked. Right. So what leads you to believe that a proposal passing is going to somehow prevent them from actually doing that anyway?

This bugged me.

The foundation are here to serve us - the apecoin DAO and follow our agreed upon decisions.

If for example “they” were proven not to be doing so then imo it would be necessary to have an RFP process to find a new administrator, and an AIP to remove all special council members for dereliction of duty.

We must be confident that what we pass is adhered to to the letter, regardless.

Thanks.

[SmartAPE]

@furiousanger

The foundation are here to serve us - the apecoin DAO and follow our agreed upon decisions.

That’s so cute.

If for example “they” were proven not to be doing so then imo it would be necessary to have an RFP process to find a new administrator, and an AIP to remove all special council members for dereliction of duty.

We must be confident that what we pass is adhered to to the letter, regardless.

It’s almost as if you’re new around here.

But yes, I agree. But as you well know, it’s highly unlikely that we would be able to do any of that.

I mean, have you seen this response during admin review? They’re literally saying that we cannot alter the terms of engagement of any hires. So, if we can’t do that, how likely is it that we would be able to do any of the above? I literally wrote an AIP for specifically such things AIP-469: Ape Foundation To Clarify Ability To Terminate Contracts

[furiousanger]

Life aye. We never give up the fight.

[SmartAPE]

[12GAUGE.Admin]

Hi @furiousanger ,

The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in 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

[furiousanger]

Proceed to next stage.

Thanks.

[12GAUGE.Admin]

Hi @furiousanger ,

Thank you for your ideas [and the ApeCoin DAO community for the insightful discussions].

A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft using the appropriate template.

• Once the AIP Draft is confirmed by the author and meets all DAO-approved guidelines, it will receive an AIP ID number and move forward for Draft Analysis Review.
• @furiousanger please see your messages for the next steps.

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments. In accordance with DAO-approved guidelines, if the author does not respond within 30 days, the proposal will be automatically transferred to the Withdrawn category, and the author can re-submit the idea.

-@Facilitators

[12GAUGE.Admin]

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

The AIP Draft submitted is currently incomplete and feedback has been provided to the author.

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.

Thank you,

-@Facilitators

[12GAUGE.Admin]

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@furiousanger has completed editing their AIP Idea to be their AIP Draft.

This proposal has been assigned the AIP ID Number 517.

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.

Kind Regards,

-@Facilitators

[likkee.eth]

Who moved my cheese!?!?