AIP-582: ApeChain, On-chain – ApeCoin DAO Governance Revamp

Active Proposals Live AIPs
22

Have few questions similar to some folks above.

A good understanding from a philosophical point of view would be how much of the future of Apecoin DAO is focused on community members and how much its focused on Apechain.

Arbitrum DAO is so well structured but obviously there are seen as a more of an infra ecosystem which slightly is and would be different for our ecosystem.

  • What about AIPs that further enchance the ecosystem but arent directly connected to Ape Chain, lets see media brands or folks building on IP outside this space ?

Would that be something Banana Bill would be focused as an ecosystem fund where as the DAO is focused on infra and growing on a bigger scale from business to distributuon ?

  • Which perhaps brings to, I would love to know what the banana bills focus is vs the DAO.
    Where are there similar and where do they differ ?

Ex - if i am building a product, as a community member where would i go in what scenario ?

  • Last question

I understand the optics of our DAO is different, how does arbitrum dao deal with new folks entering the ecosystem without a network getting the support for their idea. Ideas arent sometimes that objective, because its dependent on who is executing it and who has the skill.
How do you see that happening moving forward ?

500,000 for a temperature check is a high number, does that not centralize some of this ?

From a business stand point it makes sense you dont want random AIPs being put , you want quality so you can bring quality value back from actual builders and active participants. Which slightly will go against the community ideaology for someone new to the system.

How do you see that working out ?

I feel earlier for better or for verse being a bored ape holder too gave you an edge to putting AIPs that grow the IP was seen as a net positive for everyone outside even the financials, which ofcourse in someway is flawed, but also a community fundamental.

I assume clarity between banana bill and apecoin DAO how and what their focus us would help alot with the above

Appreciate everything you do Waabam
Thankyou for putting this through

3 Likes
23

I echo this. This live AIP skipped multiple steps that other AIPs would have been expected to follow.

At this point, the DAO community has a decision to make. Is it comfortable with its rules being circumvented?

2 Likes
24

I’m of the opinion now the zero-cost label is simply a red herring injected to distract & will likely be adjusted.

I’m compiling a list of questions & concerns - in the hope we can get some changes added before it goes to vote and raise awareness of pitfalls if not.

3 Likes
25

this will be on snapshot withing 2 weeks anyway lol, adjusted or not

1 Like
26

Good point.

Good point.

Good point.

1 Like
27

The Temperature Check is similar to what was previously proposed and rejected by AIP-366. The Voting Process therefore happens twice; once on Snapshot and again on-chain. As compared to our current voting, the additional requirements include a minimum number of $APE delegated to an AIP author in order to propose an AIP and that at least 3% or 5% or all Votable Tokens for “in favor” during the final on-chain voting.

The Phase 1 Temperature Check requires that AIP authors receives community support from an individual or delegation with at least 500,000 ApeCoin in order to move to the Phase 1 vote. Then it will require that the AIP receive a majority before moving forward to Phase 2 KYC check and contract negotiations and moving forward to an on-chain vote where it will be required to receive a majority of the votes AND either 5% (for a Constitutional AIP) or 3% of all votable tokens and at least a majority of the votes “in favor”.

“Votable Tokens” is defined as “All $APE tokens in existence, excluding any tokens held by the APE Foundation, including its Administrative Budget and the DAO Treasury (including any locked APE intended for the Administrative Budget and DAO Treasury)”

This definition is ambiguous but I assume that what is meant is that Votable Tokens is simply all $APE tokens in existence not including tokens held by the APE Foundation. That being said, it would be good to have an estimate of the current number of Votable Tokens as an example for clarity.

Assuming for the sake of discussion that this number ends up being 650,000,000 then a Non-Constitutional AIP would only pass Phase 4 Voting where it received a majority of the votes AND at least 19,500,000 votes in favor. If we therefore would have had these Phase 4 requirements above in place at the time, the following Non-Constitutional AIPs would NOT have passed during the previous year;

AIP-524: ApeLance on ApeChain : WEB 3.0 Bridge
AIP-496: ApeCoin DAO at NFT PARIS 2025
AIP-452: Expanding APE ecosystem via SOG - Revolutionary Blockchain MOBA Game
AIP-486: Powered by ApeCoin, unlocking Web3 travel solutions for the community & Apes Swing into Lisbon Event
AIP-502: The Apemobile - Guerrilla marketing meets a KOL partnership
AIP-468: Bored Trading Co Powered By ApeCoin
AIP-481: Building the Modular IP Layer with ApeCoin
AIP-463: Empowering Otherside Wiki
AIP-455: ApeCoin Sponsorship for MY Token 2024 Event
AIP-438: ApeCoin Ventures
AIP-479: Coffee with Captain Powered by $APE on ApeChain
AIP-462: W3GrandPrix - Creating the largest F1 community in WEB3
AIP-448: ApeCoin Hotel
AIP-449: Translation System and Community Reward Program
AIP-450: NFT Event Check-in Solution based on ApeChain
AIP-440: Enhancing Exposure of Brands that accept ApeCoin as payment: Unboxing Web3 Partnership Proposal
AIP-434: Other Page: A Player Network & Rewards Hub for ApeChain
AIP-429: Apechain for Good: Happy Ape Phygital Children’s Book/Plush
AIP-433: APE EXPRESS - Next Gen degen tools for building instantly on ApeChain
AIP-432: ApeCoin Presents First Friday: Bridging Communities, Creativity, and Governance
AIP-418: APE Builder Developed by Sequence
AIP-411: ArtJourney with ApeCoin: The JRNY Gallery Experience
AIP-397: NFT Launchpad Powered by $Ape!
AIP-405: ApeSwap on ApeChain
AIP-414: ApeCoin DAO at NFC Lisbon
AIP-390: ApeCast - An app that supercharges your listening experience for all things ApeCoin
AIP-354: ApeCoinDAO AIP Ambassador & Mentorship Program
AIP-405: ApeSwap on ApeChain
AIP-414: ApeCoin DAO at NFC Lisbon
AIP-407: ApeCoin Sponsorship for WebX2024
AIP-395: .APE - Launching the Real APE Top-Level Domain on the Internet
AIP-402: $APE as a Fuel for Mobile Growth to Help Make Dookey Dash a #1 Hit Game
AIP-406: ApeCoin DAO multi-year partnership with Redacted, a Formula One Team
AIP-399: Reserving AIP ID #420
AIP-394: Bored Brewing Beer Co
AIP-390: ApeCast - An app that supercharges your listening experience for all things ApeCoin
AIP-369: Empowering ApeCoin Sub-communities with Fundraising on Twitter via IDriss
AIP-383: The Public Bored - MVP Launch of a Digital Billboard Network
AIP-353: Fashion Battle Royale Powered by Apecoin, Web3 Self-Expression Redefined
AIP-346: Monthly Laughing Ape Stand-Up Comedy Show Utility for all $APE Holders
AIP-326: Platform to Enable ApeCoin Powered Payments & Rewards for Apps & Games
AIP-335: Bored Ape Gazette Powered By ApeCoin
AIP-314: Beyond the NFT: NFT Lab Magazine’s Plan for Empowering ApeCoin’s Global Community
AIP-301: [Eesee-ApeCoin] A Collaboration for Community Engagement and NFT Accessibility
AIP-304: Create the Digital Art Movement Collection to acquire Yuga Assets(BAYC, MAYC, BAKC, and Punks and other notable NFTs…
AIP-297: An NFT Community Vault Operating as an ApeCoin Sister DAO with a Goal to Advance the Mission and Influence of ApeCoin
AIP-267: Add ‘Treasury’ tab to Apecoin.com
AIP-243: The Ape Inn - EthGlobal Project

3 Likes
28

From https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/apecoin

image
image577×564 40.9 KB

I think it’s referring to circulating supply of 721M? Unsure at the moment.

1 Like
29

I actually like the 3/5% thresholds part.

Having these thresholds (plus the 69% supermajority for $250k+ asks) makes the possibility of large wallets or let’s say “cabal” pushing costly ideas & plans through on their own less likely. Tl;dr - will of the people/majority would prevail more often than not.

Also want to point out that the proposed changes to pass thresholds (3/5%) will include abstain votes, meaning several of the AIPs referenced would have met this new criteria & passed quite comfortably in fact.

In regards to the apecoins which count. My understanding is all tokens are included (locked & unlocked), except DAO treasury & admin budget including their respective locked $ape (currently 225.7m). Meaning if these “rules” were applied today, approximately 775m tokens would be “in play” (1B - 225m), making thresholds around 23m (3%) and 39m (5%). However, I do agree a more unambiguous explanation and clarifications be made.

Thanks.

1 Like
30

This AIP would replace AIPs 1&2 and all amendments thereto including the 69% supermajority rule.

1 Like
31

Nice work to review this.

Small adjustment, it actually would include abstain in the total.

It is interesting to see what could pass in terms of Constitutional votes.
32.5M in favour or abstain as a min.

Also this shows how they define Circulating supply. @ernestlee @furiousanger

Note the numbers suggested by Waabam line up to here.

To submit a temperature check using a Snapshot poll, you must have an Ethereum wallet address with 500,000 votable tokens1; to submit a proposal on-chain using Tally, you must have an Ethereum wallet address that represents at least 1,000,000 votable tokens.

image
image1804×396 22.7 KB

image
image1804×396 23 KB

I actually suggested something similar back in August, but with different amounts.

Also included is a summary of a detailed FAQ.

Also, do you think that the Security Council comes under the definition of work for hire?

1 Like
32

Hmm…I didn’t quite think of it that way Furious. So if 3% equal 23M and 5% equal 39M…how many votes are cast normally? I can’t see quorum in closed proposals via snapshot, but the current 4 AIPs only have about 3 to 4M quorum.

Isn’t there another website that shows the votes reached? I’m having trouble finding it right now.

33

We have updated our RESET idea to incorporate the above REVAMP idea (with suggested changes) based upon the discussions we have had and the suggested changes we received from the community.

2 Likes
34

Posted this in the MBA Delegation chat. Posting here as well for transparency:

  1. I am supportive of suspending elections until we get the structure of the DAO figured out. There is no point going through the work of an election only to have it become moot soon after.

  2. I am supportive of moving the operations of the DAO on-chain. This helps us get closer to the AUTONOMOUS part of a Decentralized Autonomous Organization.

  3. I am unclear on whether the 65/35 treasury split is correct. I’d need to see how much we are spending on the Foundation side today, and how much we’ll be spending in the future, and whether 35% of the current treasury is the right amount to cover that. Some transparency here would be appreciated.

  4. I am struggling with the sponsorship requirement part. Someone needs to sell this to me. It feels like a move toward centralization of power. I have no doubt the MBA delegation will set up a process to review proposals, but I have no idea about the others. If they don’t take their role seriously in this new DAO, did we just centralize power to a couple delegations? Haven’t we been here before and fought like hell to be more democratic? Would love some clarity on this point.

  5. I am flat out confused as to why the Banana Bill administration is shifting to the SC and ultimately the Ape Foundation. Didn’t we just set up an entire structure around this 5 months ago? Again, would love some clarity on this point.

4 Likes
35

Before this thread closes, I’d like to say several things.
First and foremost, in the interest of transparency and centering the community that has spent years building this DAO, there should continue to be a separation of church and state – namely ApeCoinDAO and Ape Chain. I implore those in special council as well as system.admin to fork or launch a DAO adjacent to ApeChain I.e. ApeChainDAO that meets their needs, centers the activities that will assist Ape Chain in its endeavors.
The continued posting of proposals that aim to crumble the structures of this DAO (ie AIP 466 and others) have been less than admirable and reeks of a conspired effort of a small group of individuals and companies to engage in a hostile DAO takeover at the expense of the wider community. All of which is unnecessary when you all could simply remove yourselves from any elected posts and fork the current ApeCoinDAO to launch another, ApeChain DAO, that speaks to the structures you see fit. If you need assistance in doing so, feel free to reach out.

Said fork could include a rage quit function, allowing those who want to fork, See Nouns DAO fork, to exit the DAO at a percentage of their holdings. Members should be active and there should be parameters put in place to facilitate this. An option…

That being said, if current names and companies as well as adjacent parties attached to this proposal AND adjacent proposals of which there are several, are found to be engaged in collusion, corruption and/or a conspiracy to unconstitutionally disrupt this DAO, namely ApeCoin DAO., they should NOT only be ineligible for a rage quit fee or participation in the fork, but they also shall be banned from voting and participation for an amount of time set forth by the community. If system.admin and others want to correct the current energy and motion of the DAO, transparency and accountability are paramount… I urge system.admin and an independent body of individuals to launch an independent investigation into possible collusion

Further, The voting requirements and minimum thresholds are ridiculous and unconstitutional. There are only a small amount of delegations and individuals who would be able to push forth proposals in this manner. In the interest of democracy and transparency, this should be stricken from this proposal thus allowing anyone with membership to push forth a proposal as long as they are an active member

Additionally, those who are attached to this proposal as well as adjacent parties and previous proposals shall recuse themselves from voting to avoid an air of corruption, collusion, and/or
What does the 35% entail and how did this number/figure come about?

Marking proposals as unconstitutional vs constitutional is problematic. Who determines this?

Members of the security council AND the whatever Data Committee you all made up shall reflect the wide swath of members and demographics in the DAO. They should be ELECTED by the community and not chosen by whatever fantastical group of people you all decide is in the “in crowd”

Have we seen a report from the Banana bill? how much money has been spent thus far on operations, marketing, acquisitions and so on? Should this group of people decide to fork, a claw back of remaining funds sans rage quit exit fees, if any, shall be implemented.

2 Likes
36

THE FINAL AIP-553 is available here.

37

Why is this the initial 9 members of the Security Council?

Also can you update CaptainTrippy as:

CaptainTrippy (Banana Bill, Ape Solar, Former APE Foundation)

Also BoredApeG will no longer be in the APE Foundation in 7 weeks, as he would have hit the two year time limit in the Special Council. Therefore, depending on when this goes to vote his title could be adjusted.

Perhaps update this to after the initial security council selected by the Foundation a future democratically elected Security Council will be elected by May 2025.

Can an AIP force a change on the Banana Bill? Also, correct me if I am wrong, but would remove all Oversight of the Banana Bill from the DAO?

I am not sure if shifting the oversight to the Foundation would fit the definition of a strong voice for the DAO. I think a shift to a more centralised automous organisation structure would be more accurate (CAO), however retaining a DAO component.

Why has the temp check level been selected at 500,000 which is more in USD terms compared to ARB or ENS?

I outlined in August here:

What type of Bicameral Governance System are you thinking of?

Reference link
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/what-is-a-bicameral-governance-XVq1HB4iS5CVuTOMAGXL8Q#0

38

I’ve yet to see behind the rationale of selecting members to be a part of this security council. And why are none of these people women? smh!

3 Likes
39

afaik there is no real quorum currently and there never has been one (unless you count 1$ape).

1 apecoin is needed for a vote to be “legitimate”, and just to add more context, you could have 25million voters abstain and just 1 apecoin vote yes, and an AIP would still pass.

This is also why I campaigned to get the abstain totals removed from the live snapshot voting UI, as they had no impact on outcomes, and were only a tally for members to tick a box (btw was already becoming an outdated metric due to rise of delegations) and say “I showed up for this vote”, but if this idea passes then it would make sense to let abstain totals display prominently once again.

(NB: there’s actually lots within this AIP I really like ngl.)

Just double checked (snapshot, settings, voting) 1apecoin yep.

image
image1030×207 12.7 KB

Thanks

40

Hi mate,

Not sure this would be the case.

AIP-436 is not linked to AIP-1 and/or AIP-2 remaining.

Simply put AIP-436 referenced AIP1&2 as they both define parts of our processes.

Better to look at these sections of AIP-436 (or any past AIP imo) such as - “DEFINITIONS” & “STEPS TO IMPLEMENT” - and whether anything there is/would be compromised, and they’re just not for me.

We’re going to have to apply a certain amount of common sense to past AIPs, instead of pedantic scrutiny if we want to move forward (not suggesting this about you, just it will probably become a thing as there will undoubtedly be some hurdles in relation to past AIPs and their outdated wording & superseded parts).

NB: Although I do see issues with this AIP as it is, not sure the impact on previous AIPs is one of them for me.

Thanks

41

Hi BB,

I’m not sure we should automatically default to the ARB definition of circulating supply, reason being VOTABLE TOKENS (see below quote), are defined.

Either way tho, totally agree this needs more clarity so there’s less ambiguity - “in existence” is one example for me where a clearer definition or ARB circulating supply reference could be used etc. :handshake: