AIP-553: ApeCoin DAO Reporting RESET

Active Proposals AIP Drafts
1

PROPOSAL NAME: ApeCoin DAO Reporting RESET

MANDARIN TRANSLATION 官話

提案名称：ApeCoin DAO 报告“重置”
(DAO – Decentralized Autonomous Organization –去中心化自治组织)
(AIP – Ape Improvement Proposal – Ape 改进提案)

团队介绍：
• @ErnestLee，ApeCoin DAO 社区成员
• @AaronHaber，ApeCoin DAO 社区成员，AIP认证作者
• @Lanzer，ApeCoin DAO 社区成员

提案说明：

此AIP 提案选举两名DAO倡导者为DAO、委派代表、AIP 认证作者、和 Ape 基金会之间提供透明度，财务监督的沟通。需要明确的是，这两位DAO 倡导者没有决策权，但应享有获取以下资讯的许可权，以便向 DAO 社区报告。

  • DAO 倡导者应由两名当选成员组成。

*DAO倡导者每人年薪为120,000 美金。

  • 首任DAO 倡导者应在DAO管理团队通过本提案后，由 DAO投票选出。
  • DAO 倡導者的任期应为两年。为达成任期错峰安排，在第一次选举中得票第二多的当选 DAO 倡导者的初始任期为一年。
  • DAO 倡导者对基金会的行政预算和香蕉法案具有报告权。此报告权仅限用于收集向 DAO 社区报告的必要资讯。
  • DAO 倡导者应有权參加 Ape 基金会会议以及有权访问所有影响DAO 社区报告的必要资讯。此类信息应包括，但不限于，特别委员所做的所有决策，或者在特别委员的职位被废止的情况下，基金会所做的任何原本是由特别委员做的决策。
  • 根据已通过的AIP规定，DAO倡导者有权告知Ape基金会全体会议参与者有关DAO规则与流程。
  • DAO 倡导者应至少參加一次每周全员大会。 每周全员大会将在Discord或Twitter等社交平台上举行，会议录音和总结会在ApeCoinDAO讨论区分享。为保证透明度，每周全员大会将包括最新动态，主持讨论，问题与回答环节。
  • DAO 倡导者只有在其的行为会对Ape 基金会造成伤害时，才会受到保密协议的约束，并禁止与社区沟通。话虽如此, 其目的是为DAO社区提供最大的透明度。

选举

DAO 倡导者应由DAO社区在一月份按照DAO行政部门决定的方式选出的两名成员担任。提名的过程必须符合AIP-137对特别委员提名的具体要求。

两名倡导者应在此AIP提案通过后的首次选举中选出。初选中得票第二多的新当选的DAO倡导者的任期为一年。 DAO 倡导者的任期为两年。候选人必须满足以下要求：

a. 必须在ApeCoin DAO讨论区至少是6个月以上的常驻成员。
b. 是DAO讨论区的活跃成员（ Trust Level 2）或更高。
c. 具备与该职位相关的可验证的过往专业经验和资质。
d. 对外公开自己的全名，以确保透明度。

DAO 倡导者在任期结束时有资格参选连任。第一次选举将会选出一位任期两年的成员和一位任期一年的成员。采取任期错峰安排是为了确保管理连续性。随后选举出的成员任期均为两年。选举将在每年的十二月份举行，每位获选成员的任期将从来年一月一日开始，到他们各自任期的十二月三十一日结束。

DAO 倡导者可以在任期结束前通过不信任投票罢免。 罢免 DAO 倡导者的过程应尽可能迅速，无需任何进一步的行政审查。 任何有資格提出 AIP 的社区成员或代表都可以随时通过提交 AIP 来提议罢免 DAO 倡导者。 此类 AIP 一旦通过，该DAO 倡导者在获得赞成罢免的多数票后应被罢免。 如果DAO倡导者被罢免或辞职，该成员应在可行的情况下尽快由特別选举替换。

如果侯选成员少于两位，选举照常进行。任何未填补的职位将在60天内重新开放申请，以确保充分的代表性和连续性。

DAO预计所有 DAO 倡导者履行其任期，直到选举完毕，新的 DAO 倡导者上任。

有利于ApeCoin金融生态系统：

ApeCoin DAO的财务活动的透明性对于向DAO成员提供作出明智投票决策所需的信息至关重要。AIP-553通过建立明确的机制、加强决策过程，并促进更大的社区信任，从而强化了DAO治理。AIP-553也促进了透明度和问责制，这对于维持长期参与至关重要。最后，AIP-553鼓励更广泛地参与DAO运作，使ApeCoin金融生态系统成为去中心化治理的典范。

实施步骤：

  1. 在此AIP提案通过后选出两名倡导者。
  2. 选出的两名DAO 倡导者于首次选举结束后14天内就职。
  3. DAO 倡导者有根据本提案要求访问信息的权力，以便向 DAO 社区报告。

此提案将在以下前提完成时全面实施：

a. DAO倡导者已被选出并开始任职，
b. 在AIP-553所述的治理流程已运作，而且
c. 初期三个月的系统性能已经完成评估。

报告期望：

提案实施后，社区和管理团队应在三个月后审查提案的影响，以评估其有效性。需要考虑的指标包括审查提案数量，社区的治理参与度，以及DAO成员的反馈。

总成本：

需从ApeCoin 金融生态系统基金会支出的总费用：240,000美金 /年

当中文版本与英文版本有冲突时以英文版本（AIP-553）为准。

TEAM DESCRIPTION:

• @ErnestLee, ApeCoin DAO Community Member
• @AaronHaber, ApeCoin DAO Community Member, Approved AIP Author
• @Lanzer, ApeCoin DAO Community Member

PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION:

This AIP proposes electing 2 DAO Advocates that will provide transparency, treasury oversight, and communication between the DAO, Delegations, AIP authors, and the Ape Foundation.

To be clear, such DAO Advocates shall have no decision-making authority but shall be provided access to the information detailed below so that such members may report the information to the DAO community.

• The DAO Advocates shall consist of 2 elected members.

• The DAO Advocates shall be paid an annual salary of $120,000 each.

• The initial DAO Advocates shall be elected by the DAO vote upon passage of this proposal in a manner decided by the DAO Admin team.

• The DAO Advocates shall serve a two-year term. To accomplish staggered seasons, the elected DAO Advocate with the second most votes in the first election shall serve an initial one-year term.

• The DAO Advocates shall have reporting authority for the Administrative Budget of the Foundation and the Banana Bill. Such reporting authority is intended to be used only to gather the information necessary to report to the DAO Community.

• The DAO Advocates shall be afforded access to Ape Foundation meetings and all information necessary to effect reporting to the DAO community. Such information shall include, but not be limited to, all decisions made by the Foundation.

• The DAO Advocates shall have the authority to inform Ape Foundation general meeting attendees of DAO rules & processes, as established by Accepted AIPs.

• The DAO Advocates shall participate in at least one weekly town hall meeting with the community. Town hall meetings will be held weekly on platforms such as Discord or Twitter Spaces, with recordings or summaries shared in the ApeCoin DAO Forum. Meetings will include updates, moderated discussions, and Question and Answer session to ensure transparency.

• The DAO Advocates shall only be subject to a non-disclosure agreement prohibiting communication with the community where doing so would cause harm to the Ape Foundation. That being said, the intent is to provide maximum transparency to the DAO Community.

ELECTIONS

The DAO Advocates shall consist of 2 members elected in January by the DAO Community in a manner decided by the DAO Administration. Nominations shall take place in a manner consistent with the requirements set out in AIP-137 for Special Council nominations.

Two DAO Advocates shall be elected during the first election upon passage of this AIP. The newly elected DAO Advocate with the second most votes during this initial election shall serve a one-year term.

DAO Advocates shall serve a term of two years. Applicants must meet the following qualifications:

a. Be an active member of the ApeCoin DAO Forum for at least 6 months.
b. Achieve at least Trust Level 2 on the DAO Forum.
c. Demonstrate verifiable historical experience and qualifications relevant to the role.
d. Publicly disclose their full name, first and last, to maintain transparency.

DAO Advocates shall be eligible for reelection at the end of their term. The first election will result in one member serving a 2-year term and one member serving a 1-year term, ensuring staggered elections for continuity. Subsequent elections will elect all members to 2-year terms. Elections will occur in December of each year with terms beginning on January 1 and ending on December 31 of their respective term lengths.

DAO Advocates may be removed by a vote of no confidence prior to the end of their term. The process for removing a DAO Advocate should be as expeditious as possible without the need for any further administrative review. Any community member or Delegation eligible to propose an AIP may propose to remove a DAO Advocate at any time by submitting an AIP to do so. Such AIP will pass, and such DAO Advocate shall be removed upon receiving a majority of the vote in favor of removal. In the event of removal or resignation of a DAO Advocate, such member shall be replaced by special election as soon as is practical.

If fewer than two candidates apply, the election proceeds, and any unfilled positions will be re-opened for applications within 60 days to ensure adequate representation and continuity.

All DAO Advocates are expected to serve their term until the election is complete and the new DAO Advocate is placed in office.

BENEFIT TO APECOIN ECOSYSTEM:

Transparency in the financial activities of the ApeCoin DAO is vital to informing the DAO members of the information necessary to make informed voting decisions. AIP-553 strengthens DAO governance by establishing clear mechanisms, enhancing decision-making processes, and fostering greater community trust. AIP-553 also promotes transparency and accountability, which are vital for sustaining long-term engagement. And lastly, AIP-553 encourages broader participation in DAO operations, making the ApeCoin ecosystem a model for decentralized governance.

STEPS TO IMPLEMENT:

Elect 2 new DAO Advocates upon passage of this AIP.
2 new DAO Advocates take their positions within 14 days of the conclusion of the first election.
DAO Advocates shall be provided access to information required pursuant to this proposal for reporting to the DAO community.

The proposal will be fully implemented when:

a. DAO Advocates are elected and operational,
b. Governance processes outlined in AIP-553 are functioning, and
c. The initial 3-month review of the system’s performance has been completed.

REPORTING EXPECTATIONS:

After implementation, the community and administrative team should review the proposal’s impact after 3 months to evaluate its effectiveness. Metrics to consider include the number of proposals reviewed, community participation in governance, and feedback from DAO members.

OVERALL COST:

Total amount requested from the ApeCoin Ecosystem Fund: $240,000 annually.

3 Likes
2

Definite yes for transparency.

7 Likes
3

Transparent Council, empowered voters: Building trust in every APE holder’s voice!

This is a great way forward :apecoin:

5 Likes
4

Hi Ernest,

First off love the enthusiasm to drive change around the lack of transparency. :handshake:

Moonlyght already implemented reports (AIP-305), and these were treated with contempt by the majority of the special council. Lost then used viewing figures of the “joke style” reports to drive their revocation on spaces often, and then finally in AIP-426 they were shelved.

So in conclusion I’m really struggling to get behind this old/new initiative. I think most people here, including myself, are looking for something new and original to drive us forward, and this simply isn’t it I’m afraid.

Tl;dr - Unfortunately there’s nothing new here.

Thanks.

3 Likes
5

This is way to go :+1: transparency is the key :fire:

5 Likes
6

Read it again, my friend.

The main thrust here is transparency and helping AIP Authors achieve their goals.

T previous reports weren’t very informational and were only put in this forum which we all know is not that well attended.

This AIP would see the Special Council meeting being fully transparent, recorded, and put out for all to see, with NDA-sensitive materials from 3rd parties redacted if need be.

It will also see the Special Council be a contact for all Accepted AIP Authors with the Special Council acting as a conduit between the Foundation and Authors to make sure:

  1. AIP Authors can get the help that was promised to them in their AIPs
  2. AIP Authors are reporting on their progress, which will make them accountable.

We’ve been told for years that Special Council members can’t comment in public because of an overreaching NDA. It’s time to help our amazing Special Council members and free them from this NDA so they can finally be transparent with the DAO.

5 Likes
7

This is a prodigious sum for a position with no external accountability. If a SC doesn’t do their job, there are no repercussions, no way for the DAO admin to penalize or dismiss anyone. The SC is on their “honor” to work hard for a six-figure salary. Look to historical behavior, not to promises of future behavior. And a suggestion that SC members can be removed by AIP is unpracticable as there are social barriers to calling for a particular member’s dismissal, and they can just backchannel with whales. Also, I don’t see clarity on how much future SC members would receive. Either way, if there is a DAO foundation or admin, they need HR oversight powers or the power to censure and dismiss for nonperformance.

Failure shall be noted but, as with the salary, there are no repercussions for nonperformance or negligent performance. My AIP process has taken over 1/3 of a year SO FAR and has been sitting in admin review for months. It’s a grant to an educational nonprofit with no legal issues whatsoever. I am literally thinking of making an AIP to get my AIP to a vote, but I doubt it would go to a vote.

I like the reasonable noncompete clause. However, as with my previous two comments, how would it be enforced? This is the issue with the admin in DAOs in general. There’s no HR functions. Everyone is on their “honor” to work hard. If they don’t, there are no consequences.

2 Likes
8

The transparency created by this AIP would very clearly and publicly show if any Special Council member is not showing up, not voting, and not pulling their weight. This would make it a lot simpler for the rest of the DAO to see these objective facts and move to remove a SC member. It will also likely cause those who intend to not work to not seek the job at all.

If you’re talking about SC, the Admin Review would be completely transparent and the Admin Review meetings would be publicly available for anyone to read. The reports would include information on why an AIP is being held in Admin Review, what the SC vote was on whether to send it to a live vote and if any members of the SC missed the vote.
Our hope is it gives full clarity to all AIP Authors both present and future on what the current SC members accept (and really they’re not supposed to have a great deal of flexibility to vote down an AIP.

Ernest is the lawyer here but my understanding is that all new Special Council members would have this in their contracts and the DAO itself would enforce. If outside contractors hire within that period of time it may reflect badly on their ability to work with the DAO and Special Council.

Thank you for the comments. This AIP idea is, of course, in idea phase and all authors are ready and willing to make changes.

4 Likes
9

There has been criticism regarding the SC salaries. This AIP does not change the salary of the SC but does increase the number of jobs and the accountability of the SC to the community.

This AIP enhances the communication between the SC and the community through weekly reporting and participation in X Spaces and one additional platform. The SC will also now be a constant point of contact for AIP authors from “cradle to grave” on their AIP, providing a channel of communication between such authors, the DAO and the community.

This AIP provides that any non-disclosure agreements between the Foundation and the SC shall only limit communications where the information is subject to nondisclosure pursuant to a provision of a commercial agreement with a 3rd party. This allows and even encourages SC to communicate the inner workings of the DAO with the community on at least a weekly basis.

Lastly, this AIP would prohibit a SC member from working for any entity that contracts with the Foundation for a period of 6 months after leaving the SC position and requires that the SC avoid “the appearance of impropriety” in their affairs.

2 Likes
10

Let’s just end the SC and put in place automation that’s on chain - which is highly transparent & cost effective.

GL, but unfortunately I see nothing original or new here that makes me want to say - “yes let’s keep SC” - in fact, all I see is more unnecessary expenses for years to come. :person_facepalming:

LFG: END SPECIAL COUNCIL FOR GOOD! :saluting_face:

Thanks.

1 Like
11

I appreciate your insight and acknowledge that you have a lot more experience with the DAO that I do. That being said, I disagree that placing “automation” “on-chain” will result in more transparency. Until we vote to eliminate all individuals that work for the DAO and are accountable to the community through vote or removal, we have SC and those SC should be held to account for their official actions.

This AIP is original because it is the first AIP to directly address the NDAs that SC sign many times quoted as preventing communication with the community. This AIP is original because it will require that SC communicates with the DAO and the community. This AIP is original because it will also require that SC not have any contracts with DAO contract counterparties.

What protections do we have in place that would require the Foundation to communicate with the community and prevent employees and contractors of the Foundation from engaging in activity that creates the appearance of a conflict of interest?

4 Likes
12

:white_check_mark: Kapow! This is good stuff. Power yes vote

4 Likes
13

Voted !! Love it !! Excited about this actually

3 Likes
14

Commenting here what I mentioned on the Space earlier so it can be discussed.

I’m all for transparency in the process, so I support the spirit of the AIP here. A few things I would like to see added, assuming there is still a SC in 2 months.

  1. Accountability: As has been mentioned before, there have been previous (failed) attempts to get communication from the SC. While the DAO can technically call for a vote of no confidence in a SC member, given this has never happened (to my knowledge) means this is an ineffective accountability measure. I would like the accountability measures of not complying with this AIP to be built into the process to failure to comply does not require additional work from the DAO.

  2. Process: We should explore how much of this process, communication and accountability can be built on-chain. The more autonomous certain aspects of the DAO are (e.g. progressing through stages of proposal, reviews, feedback, etc), the less burden on the DAO and the more transparent the process (assuming there are also standard reports built on top of this that are readily accessible to all DAO members).

  3. Communication: I believe this AIP adequately addresses most of the communication issues that have been brought up in the past. No issues there at this point.

I have no idea what the DAO will look like in a year let alone 2 months. If there is a SC, I hope it functions in a way that enables DAO members to continue to seek funding for their proposals, participate in an open and democratic process and, if approved, build their dreams.

If this helps us get closer to THAT form of the DAO, I’m all in.

1 Like
15
2 Likes
16

This is an admirable goal, but no serious executive can have constant oversight by crypto degens and moon boys who just want token price to go up. I think that executives at the level of SC need real oversight by people with proven track records of managerial experience over businesses of over $100 million. I recommend having one or more people in the DAO Foundation, or whatever structure is above the SC, with actual HR authority to deal with nonperformance or negligent performance by the SC. Consequences and accountability must be real and enforced by law.

This goes to the next point:

Reflecting badly just isn’t a real consequence. If someone violates a contractual term in the real world, there are serious civil repercussions. I believe all SC members should be privately doxed by the DAO Foundation HR group so that civil litigation for negligence would be on the table. No one should earn six figures without being willing to show personal accountability for their position.

This would be nice.

17

TRANSCRIPT
Screenshot 2024-11-04 at 5.44.57 PM

18

Love @ernestlee idea. And would love to see the DAO more transparent！

4 Likes
19

NDA’s - have you spoken with any of the foundation to understand whether this change would be acceptable and/or implementable?

Nouns DAO - this a great example of how a DAO can operate more autonomously and save on expensive & cumbersome systems often operated by gatekeepers (cabal).

Accountability - we already have in place financial penalties for the administrators, and yet here we are almost at the end of Q4 with no Q2 and Q3 reports, and Q1 was only posted after it was requested.

Automation on chain - now imagine the above financial penalties were implemented using a trust less and permission less system (contracts) vs needing an AIP which can be hindered/rejected/dismissed/lost in the ether.

Once you accept the fundamental flaw with our system are people, and that no amount of bandaids can fix, only then can you truly start on the path of fixing.

Few things to consider:

Sunset SC immediately.
Enlarge facilitators to five people for the next two years to incorporate SC tasks & give current team members extended contracts.
At the same time create a $2-$5m fund (up to $10m) to move everything on chain with up to 100% automation within 2 years. Paid out based on milestones. Run an RFP for this task. Determine the rules around automation.
Create a veto council/vote. Three/five members who are unpaid.

Tl;dr - words & goodwill are not enough to realise the change we all want to see. We need a radical overhaul of the entire system. Our greatest weaknesses within our processes are people. As close to full automation within two years & everything recorded on chain.

Thanks.

2 Likes
20

I’d like to pull this thread some.

I like the idea of trustless / permissionless processes.

How does this work with the AIP process? One of the major problems this proposal seeks to solve is AIPs getting lost in the process and never making it to a DAO vote.

Interested in your thoughts here.

1 Like