I am sharing from AIP-239:
Interesting the previous AIP sent for reconstruction, one of the requests was:
Some thought should go into this. I think that leaving it in might lead to unwise spending from the potentially impacted working groups. Also the statement should be updated as unspent vs having liabilities is not the same thing.
That is why we in the GWG included the first 3 months of the 3rd Steward in our budget. In retrospect, it should have been a requirement for others in the review process.
Regarding you point, from a less altruistic view, it also leads to only getting certain demographic applicants and hence less applicants.
Hi mate,
Agree with the first part, but the last sentence āApechain seems to be where our fate residesā for me is totally wrong and Iāll explain why.
Apechain like staking is just another idea the DAO has funded. Our mission - push web3 forward by funding whatās next - that shouldnāt end or be marked as complete. So linking the fate of the DAO to an idea, no matter how monumental it appears or large the funding amount, seems limiting to me.
Staking was 175m, many see this as a total waste of money, and they argue itās what got us to $0.70c and value 98% down. However, the DAO still carries on.
I think apechain will certainly see many users (new and old), lots of hype, and tonnes of use cases at first (just like most new chains enjoy), and ofc Iāll be there fully supporting always. But will apechain continue to thrive over thousands of other chains long-term? Who knows - I hope so - but we should never be willing to bet the future of the DAO on an ideaās outcome.
Tl;dr - letās not get too mixed up, intertwined and dependent on one idea weāve funded. Weāll hopefully fund many more hundreds and possibly thousands of ideas. Clear separation is always needed imo. Focusing on how we benefit from the successful ideas we fund, and not relying on them for our future, is how we should be moving forward - ensuring we achieve āa successful, decentralized, and sustainable DAO.ā
Thanks.
Thanks for the clarifications in all those areas because I am certain that most people donāt even have any idea about what is actually going on.
While I am aware of the above, my [core] point about MarComms was geared towards Popil (who is active, present, has done work etc) and Linstro (who, for all intent and purposes, is still a no show). They were both elected at the same time.
Yup. Yet another example of how utterly inefficiently this whole thing is. Hence my attempt to hopefully fix it via AIP-465: Alignment Of Working Group Terms And Budgets and AIP-467: Proposal To Revise Special Council & WG Stewards Term Limits
But more to the point, OKRs and KPIs are useless unless they are adhered to and are enforceable. Due to the fact that all WGs are, for all intent and purposes, their own self-contained nation states (yay! decentralization - not really), there tends to be very little transparency and accountability.
And due to the nature of the political appointments, I donāt believe that even the Special Council has the standing (or do they?) to take action if a particular WG steward fails to adhere to charters, goals etc. Itās why I wrote this proposal to get clarity on that AIP-469: Ape Foundation To Clarify Ability To Terminate Contracts because we have to be able to take action without having to go through a proposal route which is likely to fail at vote when the people we are trying to eject, get their friends ensure that it fails to pass.
Aside from the fact that the DAO leadership acts on a buddy system whereby when our friends arenāt holding up their end of the deal, the default position is to look the other way. And itās precisely why I had long held that the GwG being the only WG that has actually done more for the community, that we seemingly have no basis to create more bureaucracy with all these other WGs. I wrote this AIP-358: Ape Assembly Restructuring For Independence proposal back in Oct specifically to address this issue; but the Ape Assembly was subsequently closed, I ate a three-month ban over the Polygon/ApeChain fiasco, and even though it expired in Feb, I decided not to return because, like most (several have since left), I had grown tired of all the on-going nonsense and failings. Only ApeChain brought me back once I saw a glimmer of hope for the prosperity of our DAO and how I could make a significant difference.
There is no prosperity without transparency and accountability. None. And yet still, though I am all but certain that everyone who is active in this DAO knows this, they are silent because, aside from it always being someone elseās problem, nobody wants to rock āda clubāsā apple cart, let alone speak up and be singled out. And most of us who do complain and moan publicly and privately, arenāt alone. This was Garga back on May 25th echoing the very same sentiments that he has expressed to others (we have a few people in common).
Excerpt:
"*So far the only way for ApeCoin holders to express themselves has been the DAO, in straight up governance. Thereās been a lot of messy ***. The stuff that democracy and lack of vision will engender.
DAO ended up with all the negative parts of decentralization, and almost none of the positives, like permissionless building. "
Yet, here I am, once again (AIP-358 was the first attempt), talking about closing three largely ineffective WGs which are costing the DAO money, the stewards have treated the charter, KPIs and OKRs like mere suggestions, and to the extent that as per this incident MarComms WG, one of two stewards is literally a no show. But somehow, this is all perfectly OK because itās not our personal money, itās always someone elseās problem, and most Apes seemingly have no concept of transparency or accountability - yet wonder why ānumber not go upā anywhere.
But yeah, ApeChain is totally going to fix everything, weāre going to make a lot of money and the treasury is totally going back from $100M to $1.4B. Totally.
I donāt care what anyone says, the DAO is the core of the community as thatās why it was created in the first place. Not Twitter. Not the RL events where itās always the same faces in the churn, not your PFP. Go read the apecoin.com about page for a refresher course.
If the DAO - that being us, right here - continues to be seen as this listless entity and for which it continuously faces derision and disdain - itās simply because we havenāt done a very good job; even as we watch both the treasury and the token race to zero. There, Iāve said it.
Thanks, but I view that as a waste of both our times because thereās literally nothing that either one of us can say, write or do without transparency and accountability. Iād rather be publicly voicing my opinions so that they are retained for the DAO record. Regardless, as you well know, I am always happy to help wherever I can.
ps. I believe that we should close these three WGs and then the GwG, like they did with the secretary, can move Popil or any other person of their own choosing, under their purview as the marketing person. Then they can have her work with third-party teams/firms to come up with a robust and effective marketing plan for the DAO. But these three WGs have no reason or basis to exist.
I donāt really understand what this means. I found your response to @SmartAPE somewhat confusing. I also didnāt understand what you felt was āpoliticalā about a request for transparency and clear reporting on KPIs and tasks.
To @MemeBrains point, I donāt see this as a āfact-findingā mission. This is a business department (āworking groupā) that was allocated nearly half a million dollars. If they never received it, then the problem lies with those who disburse the funds, but thereās no point in having a group that doesnāt have the ability to get anything done, if thatās the case. Theoretically, this should go to a vote, as this is a DAO but, as this is a plutocracy in reality, itās the will of the wealthy that will be done.
Just to clarify, SmartApe mentioned that the working group budget includes a personal compensation of $9000 per month per person - a staggering sum of money that would most certainly indicate serious full-time work with reporting requirements, and accountability to the community that pays for these salaries. However, your response indicates that no budget was provided. Just to clarify, have you and your colleagues in this working group been earning $9000 per month? To whom do you directly report? If you do not fufill the requirements of your employment, who has the immediate authority to either withhold monthly compensation or fire / censure anyone?
And she still hasnāt posted the request KPIs. Like I said, zero transparency and accountability around here. And guess what? Thereās nothing that the DAO can do about it because it all falls to the Ape Foundation.
Itās in their budget AIP-403: ApeCoin DAO Marketing & Communications (MarComms) Working Group Budget at $18K per month for the two stewards.
They report directly to the Ape Foundation, but in essence, as I mentioned above, the WGs are their own nation states.
Agreed. But I removed it anyway because I didnāt think that I would get anywhere by arguing with the Ape Foundation about something they have ultimate control over.
This ultimately means that, at the very least, if we close a WG that already had a budget allocated and within their control, they are free to disburse it as they see fit. Just as you suggested. Thatās precisely why I had the claw back provision in the original proposal.
I personally, am not for disbanding MarComms. I think they are just getting started. It takes a while to get things up and running, with zero budget.
In fact, I would like to see more work come from this group. I know they are just getting their footing, but I know they have been able to get some things through to AP.
One of the things I would love to see is a roster of press, media, news stations, morning radio shows, and podcasts, and spaces put together so that whenever we have something news worthy, we can quickly send that press release out.
This takes time. And itās all new. Iām not sure what some of the other MarComms Stewards have been doing, but I do know that Popil has been on it every step of the way.
Sheās pretty easy to get access to as well and responds to DMs frequently and swiftly. Sheās provided the most recent report, but she has also been on several spaces detailing the work that is being done in MarComms.
I support the MarComms group. I hope after they have laid down some ground work they are able to beef up operations.
We need some kind of communications group to get our DAO out to the world.
I am reading the comments here and I think you need to ask yourself these questions.
- Should Marketing and Communications be an independent group, ran in a decentralised way?
If yes, then do I think the charter of Marketing and Communications is what we need in the DAO.
If Yes, or if Yes, but I see that their Charter needs refinement, then we should not Dissolve, but should improve the Charter.
If no, then the options are about where to put Marketing and Communications.
a) Centralise Marketing and Communications directly under the Foundation. They could hire and or outsource to contractors, but ultimately they control its direction.
b) Make Marketing and Communications a function under the GWG. This would still be more decentralised, as would need the DAO to approve budgets and respective KPIs.
It would be hard to argue that we donāt need Marketing and Communications, it is an important function in any organisation.
Issue is Steward Specific?
If you think the structure is not the issue, then the issue is pertaining to the performance of the WG. Is this structural or is it an issue of certain Stewards? If it is an issue with Stewards, there is a process to remove a Steward by a Dao wide vote.
So it is incorrect to say that the DAO canāt decide.
As a Steward myself I am remaining neutral in this discussion, but trying to point out some facts, so DAO members can make informed decisions.
I dislike this idea the most. UNLESS, we get all the media contacts. Every. Single. One.
If the Marketing Agency has it, we want it.
And they will NEVER give up those contacts. Thatās their whole business model.
Please read carefully, they could have internal VP for Marketing and Communications and an internal team and/or Outsource.
This option does not assume an RFP to outsource everything.
I read it. But if we outsource somethingā¦I WANT THAT LIST!
Thatās all Iām saying. Gimme the contact list.
Weāll get creative from there.
I hate to break it to you, but even if internal why would you get that list? You think Apple or Coinbase hands out its list to its community.
I think you are saying you want that knowledge base built up within the Foundation and/or overall DAO.
Once again, we can write up a charter, KPIs, OKRs etc. on parchment paper and in 100+ languages, but without the ability to enforce them - which brings us right back to pesky things like transparency and accountability, itās all a waste of time.
Who said the DAO canāt decide to remove a steward?
Yeah. I already suggested both of these, one of which is already in my proposal. and the other in a prior comment.
So you believe that itās better for our MarComms to build contacts from scratch rather than the Foundation hiring experienced agencies with track record teams - who already have those contacts? I donāt believe thatās a good plan.
In other news, Yumi is back.
āYumi disappeared from Twitter for 2 monthsāwhat have I been up to?ā
@SmartAPE I was answering @DavidW. The DAO via a snapshot vote has the authority to remove a steward.
Indeed. And since they are all their own independent nation states, if such a proposal to remove a steward were to ever go up, my guess is that we would run into the same problem that we did before when someone tried to reduce the Special Council salaries and was informed that the proposal was defective (returned for reconstruction) because the Ape Foundation would be in breach of contracts (those of the SC hires). Even though it literally says this could be done, and is right there in the governance docs. So, my guess is that if thatās the case with the SC, then I donāt see it being any different with the stewards; regardless of what the charter says. Itās precisely the impetus for my writing this proposal AIP-469: Ape Foundation To Clarify Ability To Terminate Contracts
The DAO inadvertently puts people into leadership positions with little to no transparency or accountability, and once there, there is no recourse other than elections which themselves are defective, controlled by whales, and periodic. Which is why my three proposals to close the three working groups is going to be precedent-setting because now it looks like they will go up for vote at some point.
That said, now the SC seems to have shoved a wrench into the works by asking that the claw back provision in my original proposal (which included all 3 WGs) be removed. You can read the original AIP-466: Proposal To Close Non-Essential Working Groups
When they asked me to recreate all of them separately, I did so, and removed the claw back provision. I have no idea what the ramifications of that would be if in fact a WG is dissolved and contracts subsequently terminated. What happens to the previous budget disbursements - if any?
In saying that however, it could be that they misinterpreted my claw back provision to mean that the stewards would have to return funds (e.g. salaries, events etc) they were already previously paid. Below is the part they asked me to remove.
To withdraw (claw back) any/all funding previously extended to the aforementioned working groups as part of their approved budget.
In reading it again, it occurs to me that I should probably have been explicit in what specifically would be subject to such a claw back. Anyway, I would assume that if the WG is dissolved, the Foundation would take steps to reconcile and recover any previously disbursed and unspent funds.
I had deleted my previous comment because it has been correctly pointed out to me that āindependent contractorā is probably not the right term here, and the word ābusinessā may not be the right term, either.
Part of the wonderful nature of DAOs is their ability to reconstruct and reconstitute traditional systems of organization, and that matters a lot to me. What I ultimately want to be a part of is meaningful groups in the virtual space that have real-world impacts, both on the participants and on their communities. I think ApeCoin is moving in that direction, and so I want to be more careful about my suggestions that they follow a more ātraditionalā or āformalā path of organization.
HI @popil, as per the above we are still waiting for the list of KPIs implemented. You indicated that those were done under zero budget and zero compensation - which is completely unacceptable.
However, in the interest of accountability and transparency, we would like to see/know what those KPIs were because they are integral to what steps (as per below) I take in light of this idea phase closing.
Hi @SmartAPE,
The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in less than 24 hours.
If youāre 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.