Ser, your interpretations may not have complete context. Countering a proposal is not a “hit piece,” against an author. I am not willing to argue about this. I continue to believe that we should “hire” from within the DAO. More opportunities for working groups are coming as a direct result of my many months of advocation & full-time effort.
I also personally have been a powerful advocate for keeping the proposal process open to all, preventing barriers to entry, and inviting new small token holders(like me) into the ecosystem. There are many who believe we should raise the threshold. I disagree, as it closes our door to new ideas & talented people entering the DAO. What would it mean to you if an idea required 600 $ape fee, discourse use required 250, etc etc?
The newsletter will continue to operate, as always, & grow based on feedback. A month after the post in question, key feedback was given: “I don’t always agree w/ the point of view, but reading AC Watch is an essential part of DYOR for DAO voters.” I have since worked to improve on the newsletter readability, my own journalist standards, & writing skills.
Oh wow… I’m quite disheartened to read this. I’m sorry this happened @wAPEd
If you believe so @0xSword , why on the paragraph “My problem with it: Who are the mods? Not me.” you replied “Me.” Insted of “Not people within the DAO”
That would’ve made it less personal… But the way you wrote it, clearly shows that you Personally wanted to delay AIP:77 for your own benefit.
With behaviours like these are we really advocating for decentralisation? I wonder what the overall community feels about this…
@wAPEd we have tried to connect with you and you rejected the request. I would love to have a conversation about your proposal, activity, region and so forth. Please feel free to message me anytime so we can setup a chat. All the best, bc
I’m glad to see bc engaging and clearing the air on who “has the ball” for this proposal.
@0xSword your response adds no relevant context. Yes, you’ve been a helpful voice in this forum. I’ve looked up to you. However, there’s still a glaring conflict of interest with writing opinion pieces in a newsletter which is funded by ApeCoin grants. Especially when you are heading up a competing proposal. Since this is now a sidebar discussion and next steps involve bc and wAPEd, I’ll take this elsewhere.
This is not true! You did not try to connect with me to talk about this proposal.
But moderators tried to schedue a call about the proposal To reveal what is hidden in the DAO management system. After I said that I prefer to talk by text, they were fine with that and shared a big list of questions I answered, so they did not communicate any barriers.
Talking about the call about the proposal to reveal what is hidden. I still don’t see any reason for a talk with them, there is no such rule in the DAO, and in most cases this method of communication is used to make a deal behind the scene or to influence using coomunications skill. I suggest that they wanted to talk me out of the proposal idea.
And this is not administrators or Special Council who should dictate rules here. They should serve the DAO, not to control it!
This is how our conversation about Discord looks like.
For now, he’s juggling facts. Most probabaly to cover up the activity of the administrators because if it will be revealed if for example they had a deal with anyone from the ApeComms, they all will be fired immediately.
A few forum members explained me via PM why my Discord proposal is far from the best, and now I think it had to be improved, but this is not for administrators to decide, but for the DAO!
I should have a right to get my proposal for voting and get rejected if it’s not good enough.
All good, mate. But if you have this feedback, a better way would be to prepare a new version of your proposal; discord for DAO would be very nice - it’s needed if you have that feedback from DAO members & Cartan Group. I guess Cartan Group’s role is to protect Apecoin DAO’s interest and lead everything with security in mind - for all of us.
I don’t believe that ApeComm’s un-approved proposal has any role in that.
After review, this Topic submitted by @wAPEd is ready for vote under AIP-77: To set up APE Coin Discord Channel. The proposal will be posted on Snapshot at the next weekly release date and time, which is every Thursday at 9PM ET.
It looks like your proposal (AIP-77) will be headed to snapshot soon, congrats!
The @ApeComms team likes to extend invitations to all authors with live AIPs to our next AIP Roundup Twitter Spaces every Monday at 12PM PT. You can see our old AIP Roundups here.
I was wondering if you would be available Monday, Dec 5th at 12PM PT, to go over your AIP live on Twitter with the community?
Please let me know! I would love to ask you some questions!
After thought - can we token gate the majority of the discord to ensure that only $APE holders are participating in the critical channels? Discourse has this requirement - a Discord should too.
I do not believe this will occur, but in any case, please note that even the ApeComms team’s own proposal was rejected by the community due to the substance of the AIP itself. The outcome of your proposal will similarly be assessed in the same manner and voted upon by the community.
The broader ApeCoin community will decide whether your AIP passes or fails, not the ApeComms team.
This proposal is live for Snapshot vote at Snapshot. The voting period closes next Wednesday at 9PM ET.
The AIP implementation is administered by the Ape Foundation. Implementation may be immaterially or materially altered to optimise for security, usability, to protect APE holders, and otherwise to effect the intent of the AIP. Any material deviations from an AIP, as initially approved, will be disclosed to the APE holder community.
