AIP-553: ApeCoin DAO Reporting RESET

I am in alignment with this notion. I encourage the implementation of three or an odd number of members to ensure one can and may act as a tie breaker and/or mediator in the case of a disagreement.

3 Likes

We considered 3 Special Council members but reduced that number to 2 given the overwhelming pressure to eliminate the amounts spent on the Special Council salaries. The Special Council do not have decision making authority. They report the information to the DAO, who makes the decisions. That being said, we did not feel that it would be appropriate to ask 1 Special Council member to do the jobs that we added to their job descriptions.

3 Likes

Yeah, we originally had all 5 SC on the Security Council, and had cut their salaries to $25K. But there were a lot of pros and cons that swung us each way and we settled on 2 doing the job. Ernest led the way big time on us getting to an end number. Big props to him for putting in the coordination work to get community input.

3 Likes

Even after this discussion closes, we would love to have your opinion of the revised proposal. Our DMs are open on X (@aaronhaber and @ernestleedotcom) I can also be reached directly at ernest@ernestlee.com.

3 Likes

This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

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

This proposal has been assigned the AIP ID Number 553.

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

Kind Regards,

-@Facilitators

5 Likes

Love it, thanks Chris! :slight_smile: Looking forward to it!

2 Likes

Word up !@!
lets go !! we have to empower ourselves

I am going to be campaigning IN FAVOR of this one.

I was the of the few to bucked the establishment on the last one.
this is an important time, and while I love ApeChain with all my heart, we should not box out other business distributions.


fuseifauebg

2 Likes

+1 to empowering ourselves. Appreciate your support MonkeyMike!

Hi mate,

Gonna start off brutally I’m afraid. :heart:

So what it boils down to really (the proposition here) is whether I trust a comedian, a lawyer and a lanzer to deliver on another team’s vision, allbeit with a few adjustments.

Not forgetting that the other team are four highly connected & serving special council members.

So, my first question has to be - why should I have faith that Aaron, Lancer and yourself are more capable & qualified to deliver this idea over the OPs?

Sell me baby!

Thanks

1 Like

That’s the kind of brutal I can appreciate.

Since we ended up integrating the best of our original proposal into the proposal of those highly connected & serving special council members you mentioned, most of the selling is already done.

The only remaining portion to sell are the improvements we made. It all comes down to risk.

  • If you believe as we do that we shouldn’t sunset the only elected council remaining and replace it with an unelected council, ours is the better fit.
  • If you believe as we do that we should see into the decision making process instead of just the end result, ours is the better fit
  • And if you believe as we do that our elected council should be able to communicate more than “Can’t comment further because of my NDA,” ours is the better fit

How’d I do? :slightly_smiling_face:

3 Likes

Thank you for your question here and for your continued support of the ApeCoin DAO.

Delivery on the promise of the RESET AIP will be in the hands of the ApeCoin DAO community. We are not suggesting that the three of us will deliver on the vision of the RESET AIP. We are suggesting that the three of us restructured the REVAMP idea to provide oversight of the ApeCoin DAO community that is not in the original draft. We did this based upon the concerns of the community. We did that based upon our varied experience.

I am a lawyer, but also an accountant, and investor and a business owner. I don’t define myself in the DAO by these titles but instead by my unwavering commitment to the original mission of the DAO. I personally got involved with the DAO because I saw a body that was helping entrepreneurs achieve their dreams; a mission that I have been on for the last 30 years. In my investment fund, for example, I have reviewed hundreds of business plans and, on occasion, have helped entrepreneurs achieve their vision.

Aaron is a comedian but also a very good businessman who has been working on the sidelines for the DAO since the beginning. He minted his Bored Ape and is a proud Yuga owner/ fan.

Lanzer is a very qualified contract negotiator and a business owner. Lanzer has been active with the Sandbox DAO and saw things that other missed when interpreting the text of the REVAMP idea.

This team of three put to this text the thoughts and concerns of the community. We understand the need for further decentralization but do not want this movement to disenfranchise the community, leaving control in the hands of a few, albeit very qualified, individuals.

In short, we really did take the best of the REVAMP idea, as we think that it is a very good plan. As I said, delivery on the promises of the RESET plan truly will will be in the hands of the ApeCoin DAO community. 1 Ape = 1 Ape.

3 Likes

So the proposed process will simply mirror how the ApeCoin DAO was first established - choosing recognised (and in this instance KYC’d community members), so we can hit the ground running - who will be replaced via a community vote at the earliest possible opportunity. So I see no problem there, although my selection for our first security council wouldn’t have included at least three of the names on the list currently.

But you’re not looking at the bigger picture - with more automation and on-chain processes the need for special council and their respective NDAs no longer exists/have become redundant. Sure we could probably do with a small team to handle comms better - but isn’t that what the majority of y’all just voted for when ending the working groups and giving power to the ape foundation to create those roles & present in the form of RFPs?

I say this in all kindness to others here, (as I know you’re already a big player at Sandbox DAO) - there are plenty of other DAOs out their to fund your “dreams”, but for now, and with the tiny treasury we have left, which ofc is soon to be reduced by yet another 35%, we have to focus on ApeChain and be super selective in what we spend our last pennies on - ideas that will push ApeChain adoption forward. Yes this approach may impact the plans of a small number of people, (and that’s why I mentioned other DAOs earlier), but in the long-run I truly believe the many will benefit from these sacrifices we make now. NOMOREDUMBSHIT

Many thanks,

Furious

The changes that we have suggested in AIP-553 for the REVAMP idea are;

  1. Focusing the mission on growing ApeChain while ALSO continuing to accept no-ApeChain related AIPs.

  2. Clarifying that the REVAMP idea will completely replace AIP-1 and 2 as well as all amendments thereto.

  3. Requiring that the Ape Foundation submit an annual budget for the DAO to approve.

  4. Clarifying how much ApeCoin will be transferred to the Foundation pursuant to this plan. Some estimate that 30 million ApeCoin will be transferred to the Ape Foundation without any oversight pursuant to the REVAMP idea.

  5. Reducing the number of Special Council members to two Ombudsmen or Ombudswomen. We prefer the latter but the initial two would be @Waabam_eth and @Mo_Ezz14

  6. Repurposing the Special Council to provide Treasury oversight, communications with the ApeCoin DAO community at least once weekly and as a liaison between the community, delegations, AIP authors and the Foundation/ DAO. Although the REVAMP idea would provide increased transparency in the on-chain voting, it would not provide the DAO with any transparency in regard to the budget nor management of the Foundation.

  7. Continuing its role of oversight for the 100M ApeCoin Banana Bill. We feel that this oversight is necessary and should be expected by the DAO.

  8. Clarifying that “votable tokens” means all ApeCoin tokens in existence except ant tokens held by the Ape Foundation.

Even after paying the Special Council and the new Security Council, AIP-553 would still save the DAO $150,000 annually.

1 Like

4 members will go up for reelection 6 months after ending on Snapshot. 5 members will go up for reelection 12 months after it goes to Snapshot.

their respective NDAs no longer exists/have become redundant

NDAs don’t become invalid because of an on-chain process. On-chain processes are surrounded by off-chain processes. Those discussions, rationales, and disclosures, are still subject to the broad reach of an NDA.

Yes this approach may impact the plans of a small number of people

Of the 552 AIPs that have gone to vote, only 49 have received more than the 20M that would now be required. As in, 91% of all AIPs (to include Ape Express and others) would have been impacted.
Source: Delegate This (skip to 1:20:40)

NOMOREDUMBSHIT

Are you NoMoreDumbShit on snapshot, per chance? I’m really curious to know what led them to vote yes on AIP-552

Look we’re definitely similar people you and I, and I get what you’re saying.

But the way I’m seeing things is let’s do this for now (what’s proposed), let’s see what RFPs and appointments & roles the foundation create now they have the power, and let’s focus on making apechain the best it can be now, whilst the market is hot, and there’s excitement again.

To do this we have to put on hold, just for now anyway, other endeavours such as “funding unrelated dreams”.

Once we’re financially sound, as don’t forget apechain will be the biggest contributor to the DAO treasury when it’s fully printing, and rn we’re pretty depleted, and once this happens then we can revert back to opening up the grants to “all” and look at appointing more people and creating roles for the parts we all feel we’re lacking in.

Tl;dr - let’s embrace these changes for now, all work together to find the right balance, and once we’re comfortable and in a better financial position we will reassess where we are. If we don’t put everything into apechain and make it a success not only have we wasted 100m $ape, we’d have also made sure the DAO dies pretty soon as funds will dry up pretty quickly. (As remember we’ve spent around 340m of our 470m $ape bag, and we’ve only ever seen a return of $5k, it’s just simply not sustainable. :grimacing:

Thanks. LFG. Ape & ApeChain to the moon!!

1 Like

It looks like a good step in the direction of transparency. Great idea

2 Likes

I understand where you’re coming from. I don’t believe that ApeChain success has to come at the expense of the Special Council or to raise the bar to the degree that most AIPs are no longer able to be considered. I think our version strikes a healthy balance between introducing the needs of ApeChain with the continued needs of the community.

1 Like

We can continue to push forth this down AND fuel Apechain at the same damn time. The ways in which some folks are attempting to centralize power and resources is problematic.

Thinking very strategically about the future of ApeCoinDAO and implementing changes incrementally with the RIGHT stewards in place, will allow for oversight of adjacent parties and properties and continue to model the ways in

In that respect, it is imperative that we ensure, that we do not create barriers to entry, participation and access by implementing unusually high token amounts in order for someone to push forth proposals which is inequitable and problematic. To be solution-oriented. It would serve the DAO to begin to draft a participation guide (or content) and continue to educate members of the DAO on DAO governance, participation, voting, etc and do so in ways that are easily digestible. I am happy to support and showcase some of the work some of the organizations I work with and even past DAO stuff that can lend itself to creating some of this. IMO, there has been a drastic swing in changes via proposals and other behavior that in end, to be frank, will not lend itself to reforming the DAO, but ratherm centralize power and resources to those who already have thus amassing more of it at the expense and health of the DAO and the structures that have been built for the last few years. Looking at implementing a continuum of impact/theories of change, instead of shifting power and funding to the Foundation or other parties, we can think more strategically about how we can implement change incrementally and reset the DAO and continue to craft its governance and frameworks.

Onward and upward!

6 Likes