I am reviewing another AIP idea that was just posted and will provide my thoughts soon. In the meantime, please take a moment to review.
Initially, it appears that under the REVAMP linked above,
the ApeCoin DAO would only fund ApeChain related projects,
an AIP author would need to have 500,000 APE to submit a new proposal and would need to have at least 1,000,000 APE delegated to them before the AIP Idea will move to vote, and
a 9 member Security Council will oversee the DAO and will be paid $25,000 each annually for the work that they do for the DAO.
Unfortunately, it appears that this REVAMP idea would further centralize the day to day decision making and operation of the DAO performed by contractors without any provision for any transparency to the community. When I first heard that this proposal could be coming, I had honestly hoped that this would not be the case.
Further, it appears that 35% of the current treasury would be allocated to the administrative functions of the DAO. So although this REVAMP idea purports to save the DAO $400,000, that figure does not appear to be completely accurate.
Thank you for your consideration VonFrontin. Perhaps we should incorporate some of the ideas in the REVAMP idea into the RESET idea. For example, the procedure for immediately removing a member of the Security Council could be incorporated into the RESET idea for removal of a Special Council member.
If the REVAMP idea moves forward, it should be either returned for clarification or reconstruction because it spends more than 5% of the treasury AND is at Odds with the mission/ values of the DAO
Reasons to tag as “Return for Clarification” may include but are not limited to:
Cost to implement unclear/not able to be calculated
Would use more than 5% of the DAO treasury
Conflicts with another proposal
Reasons to tag as “Return for Reconstruction” may include but are not limited to:
Proposal is at odds with the mission/values of the DAO
Proposal is at odds with the well-being of the DAO
Violations of law, or against advice of counsel for APE Foundation
Reasonable suspicion of fraud or other misleading information
The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in roughly 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 have received a lot of feedback and comment on this proposal over the past week. Thank you to everyone that reached out in one way or another. We are revising the proposal later today in response to the feedback and in light of the REVAMP idea that has been posted on the Forum.
We have uploaded our changes for this proposal to incorporate the feedback that we have received from the community over the last week and to incorporate the REVAMP idea posted to the forum.
Ernest, Aaron, and I really went back and forth on how to take into account the @Ape.Admin’s REVAMP AIP post.
We ended up taking the verbiage proposed by the REVAMP AIP and incorporating the best of our RESET AIP.
It seemed like a good compromise between competing AIPs, where @Ape.Admin revamp AIP proposes changes to DAO voting and the community’s desire to keep transparency into how decisions are made.
Before this thread closes, I’d like to say several things.
Instead of 35%, they need to propose a budget detailing line items and needs that is then approved by the DAO (not themselves). An ad-hoc budget & oversight committee shall be created to ensure the budget is in tandem and pursuant to the values and constitution of the DAO and its bylaws, if any. Also elected, voted in and selected by the DAO to serve during a three month period to steward this process – November - January.
A report shall be provided both quarterly and annually to detail their activities alongside an independent financial audit and report.
The members of the initial security council should comprised of THREE members all of which are voted in, ELECTED and decided by the DAO. NOT some arbitrary group of selective individuals.
Yes. The 35% is a placeholder but the budget would need to be submitted to the DAO and approved annually, but the reporting would be done on a monthly basis by the 2 Special Council members who also provide Treasury oversight. We thought that this option would strike a balance instead of the original proposal of transferring 35% of the treasury to the Foundation.
Also, the members of the Security Council would need to be elected as soon as on-chain voting is available.
Ok thank you for the quick response @ernestlee (unlike some people LOL!). And all of you did a wonderful job on this AIP. Really appreciate all of your (all of the authors) hard work, the intention and thoughtfulness.
We really did work hard on this and wanted figure out a way to revise the REVAMP proposal in a way that the community at large would keep oversight and transparency that everyone wanted. I personally consulted with at least 20 different individuals (all of whom I thank for their insight and suggestions) who really do care deeply about what happens in the DAO.
Knowing now that you and many others are supportive of this idea really does make it feel as though all of the hard work by this team was worthwhile.
Leave significant autonomy for implementation, but also leaves and annual check and balance.
2 Special Council. What happens if they don’t agree? Would 3 be best but with scope less for each, so budget remains the same?
I think one member joining each week would be sufficient. This is far more than now and these could rotate to cover different timezones.
How do you see this role? Like an official Ombudsmen?
Can you clarify Banana Bill funds not requested either to cover current (not future costs) and investments into commercial agreements do not get included as Votable tokens. Eg not the same 100m total APE allocation.
Why 500k, this is double ARB amount and more than double ENS.
ARB is 500k ARB. Approximately 250k Ape
ENS is 10k ENS. Approximately 200k APE
Given that they are the two who have 6 months left on their term. Would this mean an election in summer 2025 or you would extend their term till 2026?
Has consideration been given to geographical location as an emergency can happen at any time and usually an attack will be selected when most are asleep.
Also where did this list come from? One person on this list openly stated they won’t answer questions or follow DAO rules.
Have you also considered balance of nationalities and residences. This information would be kept private by the Foundation.
However, based on open information I believe at least 6 of the 8 names are US residents.
Would this apply to Banana Bill. Including those with an advisory role there?
Btw Captain Trippy is also a cofounder of Ape Solar and also Former Ape Foundation.
I know we put our budgets in US, but have you considered putting these payments in APE but on drip contracts, such as with Hedgey Finance (used by ARB and ENS Foundations already). Also we used before in the GWG.
Ok my answers done, 20 mins left @ernestlee thanks
Two members should work given the overwhelming desire of the community to reduce the numbers.
Any major decisions made would be decided by the DAO vote. Yes, like an Ombudsman, the Special Council will provide oversight and accountability giving the community the information that it needs to make those decisions.
The 500K number was in the original REVAMP idea. We felt that this is reasonable provided that Delegations such as Bulls on the Block and others could “sponsor” an idea. This coordination with Delegates would also be good for the AIP authors in the way that writing a good business plan is always good for a new small business. It will help AIP authors in that way.
One of the two Special Council members would be randomly selected to extend their term to December of next year. This way the 2 Special Council member elections would be staggered.
The list of Security Council members came directly from the REVAMP idea but that is a really good idea on geographic diversity for purposes of security. If this is the eventual list, we should consider that point when they are elected as soon as on-chain voting comes online.
Yes the conflict of interest rule should apply to the Banana Bill.
We did consider putting the payments in ApeCoin but felt that the community would want to adjust if we get to a $3-5 ApeCoin in the coming months. (fingers crossed)
