AIP Idea: Defining Ambassador and Other Terms to Create a New DAO Office

Proposal Name: Legal Probing into DAO Ability to Fund and Associate with Ambassadors
Proposal Category: Ecosystem Fund
Abstract | Two or three sentences that summarize the proposal.
The AIP proposes legal due diligence as to the ability of the DAO to define and fund the Ambassador position.

Upon acceptance of legal risk to define and associate with Ambassadors, this AIP proposes the creation of the official terms “Ambassador” “Ambassador Mandates” “Community” “Ambassador Candidate” and “Ambassador Candidate AIP” to facilitate the creation of future AIPs to define the process of electing Ambassadors and the scope of Ambassador Candidates, Ambassador Mandates, Communities and Ambassador Candidate AIPs.

Motivation | A statement on why the APE Community should implement the proposal.
Ambassadors will help the DAO more quickly fulfill its mandate to proliferate $APE into mainstream use by “meeting people where they are.”

Rationale | An explanation of how the proposal aligns with the APE Community’s mission and guiding values.
Ambassadors “elected” through AIPs and defined by DAO law keep to a greater standard of decentralization and ensure optimal DAO participation in community outreach.

Key Terms:
Ambassador — a person/entity officially charged with DAO outreach to a specific Community, empowered with a $69,420 budget and 12 month unchallenged positioning (with full respect to the DAO’s 3 month automatic checkpoint) from the DAO to that end, and emburdened with successful reporting of Ambassador Mandates to the DAO on a monthly basis. The Ambassador shall never be an appointed, but always an elected position, with that election to take place through submission of an Ambassador Candidate AIP and subsequent vote to the affirmative on that AIP respecting all DAO standards of order in the voting process.

Ambassador Candidate — A DAO participant who submits an AIP specifically to become an Ambassador.

Ambassador Mandates — The Ambassador is responsible for creating ecosystem-level programs between ApeDAO and Community; activation coordination between the DAO and institutions serving Community; associative partnerships for such activations; reporting to the DAO the needs of Community; consolidating the efforts of value-aligned DAO members towards Community. Ambassador shall self-define the Community to serve and the KPIs to report to ApeDAO within the Ambassador Candidate AIP.

Community — Recipient entity of outreach from Ambassador.

Ambassador Candidate AIP — An AIP submitted by a Ambassador Candidate solely for the purpose of becoming an Ambassador. An AIP speaking to any concern other than a Ambassador Candidate’s election to an Ambassador position may not be considered an Ambassador Candidate AIP and shall have no bearing in the furthering of any Ambassador Candidate into an Ambassador position.

Specifications | A detailed breakdown of the platforms and technologies that will be used.
Horizon or another staking platform (Hopefully I can impart upon the DAO to fund this through yield, not principal)

Steps to Implement | The steps to implement the proposal, including associated costs, manpower, and other resources for each step where applicable.

  1. Perform legal due diligence on how officially defining these Key Terms and administering to Ambassadors will impact the DAO, to be administrated by Baker & Hostetler. No resources are required of the DAO aside from official approval of Baker’s findings.
  2. Upon the successful acceptance of legal risk by the DAO, the terms “Ambassador” “Ambassador Mandates” “Community” “Ambassador Candidate” and “Ambassador Candidate AIP” are accepted into the DAO, with the exact language as agreed upon by the DAO. The definitions as put forth in “Key Terms” are meant to serve as initial guidelines and not as final definitions.
  3. AIPs will be introduced to finalize the process of electing Ambassadors and the scope and limitations of Ambassador Candidates and Ambassador Candidate AIPs.

Timeline | Relevant timing details, including but not limited to start date, milestones, and completion dates.
One month maximum for legal due diligence.

Overall Cost | The total cost to implement the proposal.
$25,000 for legal due diligence, to be released in $5,000 weekly batches AS NECESSARY in response to invoicing (not all at once). Unused funds shall remain with the DAO.

1 Like

Hey Mantis,

For your consideration, please note that Candidates are already defined as part of the Special Council Election Process AIP-138

Candidate : Candidates are the Nominees that become eligible for the elections process.

Baker & Hostetler - Why this firm in particular versus the current legal counsel of the DAO who presumably have the best insight into potential impact to the DAO?

2 Likes

For your consideration, please note that Candidates are already defined as part of the Special Council Election Process AIP-138

Candidate : Candidates are the Nominees that become eligible for the elections process.

Noted. The language in OP has been changed. Item “Candidate” is now “Ambassador Candidate” and “Candidate AIP” is now “Ambassador Candidate AIP.”

Baker & Hostetler - Why this firm in particular

Baker is without question one of the top law firms in the world with respect to involvement with crypto, blockchain, digital assets, and everything concerning “web3.” They have an entire division devoted to it and have worked some of the biggest cases in the space.

The Baker Hostetler Blockchain University podcast series
Top cases they’ve worked in the sector (you might recognize some of them)

If you’re talking about “working with regulators,” this is the group that actually gets that done eye-to-eye. I have to be careful what I say here, but if you want the DAO to do more than simply respond from a reactive state to the shifting tides of web3’s major players, you need legal advisory from a group that is known for standing firm and negotiating well.

The real alpha: Since our company has worked with them extensively, we can pursue the procurement of an advantageous rate structure for their work here.

versus the current legal counsel of the DAO who presumably have the best insight into potential impact to the DAO?

G, nothing said here is meant to be personally contentious. But I can’t mince words here, because I believe the entire idea of the DAO is at a critical juncture after this Horizen thing and the deafening silence from current DAO “leadership.”

“Presumably” — I hate this word. This is the word that allows for a general laissez-faire attitude that caused everyone to be so “surprised” with the staking news. Where was current legal counsel to forewarn of possible issues with staking, especially considering surprise geoblocking/administrative tomfoolery within large Yuga events is no longer a surprise (it happened with the Otherside drop and the “surprise” KYC)? Do you think these surprises will stop? Why was the DAO surprised? It should have been warned. At this point in DAO governance, none of us have the luxury to presume anything. We must vigilantly judge actions, or in this case, the lack thereof.

To my knowledge, current legal counsel has still made no official comment. This is unacceptable.

“the best insight” — debatable. Baker’s record is at least equivalent to and likely surpasses the record of current legal counsel in this space. I honestly don’t want to turn this into a law firm vs. law firm debate; the two could work together. The attitude of the firm towards the DAO and service rendered to the DAO is most important here. And right now, I see current legal rendering no service at a critical juncture.

Also, the best insight comes from legal that’s in the belly of the beast. The entire administration of ApeDAO is now in Cayman, correct? Baker is doing their work in the heat of the fire — offices in every major city in the United States. Who do you think will be more knowledgeable about US regs, seeing as one bad move for sure screws their entire business up? And they’re still trusted with the biggest cases in crypto despite having the weight of US regulation squarely and consistently pointed at them.

If we’ve got the best legal, then why is everyone in the DAO running around like beheaded chickens guessing and wondering what to do? @0xSword felt he had to take down a Discourse post about an alt staking UI because everyone in that thread might be liable for illegal activity. Where is current legal to provide real answers? Why does the most powerful DAO in crypto with all the connections to Animoca and Hollywood and Jesus and Santa Claus have no actual guidance?

@Amplify made this point multiple times in the last Twitter Spaces about the entire administrative structure the DAO relies on right now — they do not prioritize this DAO. I’ll add to the critique: The current structure was meant to be a placeholder and now the DAO relies on it? No, the DAO should be actively looking to replace the placeholder with a permanent structure. And part of that means legal that is focused on this DAO.

I hope the DAO sees the importance of the Ambassador position. But this discussion is actually more far-reaching. We must move into Generation II of this DAO with more permanent infrastructure and an unwavering vision of decentralization and $APE proliferation. That means Gen I solutions won’t work. Time to upgrade. This is the first step.

4 Likes

Many of the team lead at “Communities” here are ambassador candidates. I would recommend to have a conversation with folks at https://boredclub.org/ to get to know more about their participation interests and feasibility.

4 Likes

Is there a connection between the recent “against” vote of the community for “ApeComms” and this idea of Ambassadors?

Could this finally be a V2 of “ApeComms” here?

2 Likes

@dyorjdr presents good questions @Mantis. Do you want to talk abt your experience w/ current DAO members who have acted as ambassadors, how they have helped you in your prior 2 proposals, what this could mean for them, and how you’re collaborating w/ these members that already have connections to BCA, Foundation admins, legal counsel, council candidate, ecosystem projects?

Also, can you talk about who inspired this idea, why they are not directly involved, their hopes for the idea, your deviations from it, the people you are working with, etc. AIP-121 now requires a proposal to disclose all team members, so please list those as well.

Because with all due respect, I have a desire to work w/ incoming new council members, after elections & the new year, to design a sustainable working group structure that focuses on the feedback, questions, & input given by a16z, foundation administrators, existing working group legal guidance that Apecomms has acquired at their own expense, and long-standing community members.

5 Likes

Is there a connection between the recent “against” vote of the community for “ApeComms” and this idea of Ambassadors?

0 connection.

Could this finally be a V2 of “ApeComms” here?

No. And if you read the definitions I put forth, you’ll see that this does not in any way step on ApeComms toes.

Do you want to talk abt your experience w/ current DAO members who have acted as ambassadors,

You are using the term ambassador colloquially here, and I am defining a specific term. The OP definition of Ambassador and all related terms have to do with official DAO outreach to COMMUNITIES like LGBTQ, BIPOC, etc. It has nothing to do with the help individuals offered me as an individual when I first came here. The idea here is that e.g. a DAO member with a history of non-profit LGBTQ work is now officially empowered by the DAO to seek relationships with LGBTQ organizations to create whatever synergy there is between that group and the DAO.

I also gave you credit for the thought in the General thread @0xSword, and will be happy to do so again here.

what this could mean for them,

It doesn’t step on ApeComms toes one bit, because ApeComms is not focused on any individual community like LGBTQ or BIPOC, but on the general outreach. Ambassadors can easily work in tandem with ApeComms once that passes.

and how you’re collaborating w/ these members that already have connections to BCA, Foundation admins, legal counsel, council candidate, ecosystem projects?

When I have an idea, I write. I don’t wait on holidays or people. If others find my ideas interesting, I definitely invite all help. If anyone is going to get mad because I didn’t get permission before posting, I can’t help that. And should this DAO turn into that type of hierarchy, I won’t be here long.

I welcome collaboration with people who have connections. That’s why I took the time to write the idea out in a professional way. Hopefully people will see that work and respect the time I took to think it out and give their comments on it so it can be a group effort. But I’m not waiting on anybody to return my email or DM to get “permission” to write, because I’ve found I’m often waiting forever on that. Not my style. I came here to get things done and put forth ideas.

how they have helped you in your prior 2 proposals,

INDIVIDUALS offered great feedback to me INDIVIDUALLY (and I have given major credit in all Spaces and you know this), but the term Ambassador I’m defining has nothing to do with that. Ambassador is official DAO member of a particular COMMUNITY empowered in outreach to that COMMUNITY.

what this could mean for them,

Nothing. Because it doesn’t step on ApeComms toes. Actually, it means an ApeComms team would have a more structurally sound outreach program because it could mandate community-specific outreach to that specific Ambassador. Not to mention more data and the connections Ambassadors would bring into the DAO and the Comms network.

and how you’re collaborating w/ these members that already have connections to BCA, Foundation admins, legal counsel, council candidate, ecosystem projects?

I consider putting forth the idea in a professional way the first step to collaboration.

the people you are working with, etc. AIP-121 now requires a proposal to disclose all team members, so please list those as well.

I’ve been working with Baker Hostetler through my company for years. It’s impossible to list the entire crypto division.

Also, this is not a “team” thing because I’m looking to define new terms, not build a piece of tech or throw an event. If the DAO wants to aggregate around this idea, then it can. If it doesn’t, then it won’t.

Because with all due respect, I have a desire to work w/ incoming new council members, after elections & the new year, to design a sustainable working group structure that focuses on the feedback, questions, & input given by a16z, foundation administrators, existing working group legal guidance that Apecomms has acquired at their own expense, and long-standing community members.

So what, everybody gets input except me? I have a problem with that. Although I believe I do now fall in the umbrella of “long-standing community members.”

If you are personally offended that I don’t wait on other people to present my ideas, you must consider my position. I think I have great ideas that are unique and necessary. Guess what? No one listens to a lowly Mutant with less than 300 followers and no personal connections with the popular Apes. My DMs get ignored. I even get blocked. Laughed at. Ignored some more. I can either cry about this or do something about it. I choose the latter. And it will be my way forward until I’m either respected or thrown out on my red monkey toosh.

None of what I presented here gets in the way of a sustainable working group infrastructure. None of what I presented here gets in the way of ApeComms 2.0. As a matter of fact, it bolsters both of those ideas. Anyone who has doubts of that, I’d love to clarify. Just ask your question.

1 Like

Okay. How will the legal recommendations be reported to the DAO?

1 Like

I’m sure that can be done a number of ways, and the DAO would choose its preferred method and timeframe.

1 Like

Details on how and who this informoation will be disclosed to, and in what medium, would be preferable now, so that us members can choose the preferred method. Will you be the only one to hold this information, attend the legal meetings, and acquire written documents?

1 Like

I don’t see why I would have to be the middleman in this at all, depending on other factors. There is a world where this AIP passes, the DAO instructs Baker to do the research, and Baker bills the DAO/Cartan directly. For that fee, Baker presents its information in a public forum that is always accessible. Upload the documents to Arweave. Put them on chain some other way. I’d prefer on chain to Cartan, but if the DAO picks Cartan, so be it.

Will you be the only one to hold this information, attend the legal meetings, and acquire written documents?

Why does any individual DAO member need written documents? Answer here is obviously no. As for attendance, I’m sure we can work out something where any interested DAO member can attend whatever public meeting(s) is produced from this effort.

I’ll wait to see if there are any members who want to make suggestions here before I make any suggestion in the Draft stage. This is just the Idea stage, so I will leave some details open in the hopes of attracting collaboration.

1 Like

Of course we love your passion in here, Mantis. This is particularly what AIP Ideas are for, so I am glad that you are always proposing ideas.

My take is that the recent issues falls more on special counsel’s communication vs. the legal team not being present. For instance the staking geofencing of US/Canada is well known to mitigate against risks related to potential securities designation. Therefore, IMO this was a strike again on poorly timed communication lead by the SC, rather than legal. No legal counsel is going to make a public post without approval by their client (unless they quickly want to get fired). Side note, this is why I am also advocating for myself to be a SC member as someone who can think through these issues ahead of time and see around these corners, independent of legal counsel :slight_smile:

Some clarification:

The entire administration of ApeDAO is now in Cayman, correct?

Administration is not the legal team. Administration are the people who help keep this running day-to-day such as Cartan and other Cayman Island individuals necessary to keep the Foundation operating. As far as we are aware unless there has been recent changes, the primary counsel is Fenwick & West, which is arguably the top blockchain firm in the space. I’m not here to pit them against Baker & Hostetler, but simply to say that it is a stretch to presume that legal is not focused on this DAO.

Taking a step back on what you’re looking to accomplish…I feel Step #1 is essentially the feasibility study (similar to the IRL events one, AIP-64). You’re picking the firm/vendor to do the study. As you develop this idea, it may be worthwhile thinking about simplifying the ask for the DAO. For example, leaving the budgeted costs and granular details of the program to later in the process; keeping your primary focus on the legal.

Ideally we had a ‘Marketing & Growth’ Working Group, or something similar, and given the cost of this AIP, this would be something that could quickly go to vote in that Working Group instead of the entire DAO. That is something that would potentially mitigate the concern you brought up on the Space of whale voters who are not in discourse regularly determining the outcome of votes. Hopefully this is something our DAO will be implementing in the coming months.

In any case, the legal recommendations are simply that - recommendations. Formal implementation of the the Ambassador program will still need to come via approved AIPs by the DAO. I will say that one advantage of choosing the DAO’s legal counsel for this: we can hear directly from them how they are thinking through the problem. Unless we vote them out (though I’m not sure if that’s even possible in the bylaws), then thinking about how to work with what we’ve got is also important. Perhaps you could even pitch both firms to do separate analysis. Just giving you ideas :v:

4 Likes

This reply is the most beautiful thing I’ve read in this forum. I wholeheartedly agree and think that you wrote a very compelling argument.

Quick question - are you at all affiliated with Baker and Hostetler or their employees in any way? I noticed that you also referenced them in AIP-128.

edit: I see now that you work with them at your current company. If there’s anything further to disclose please share, otherwise I’m content.

Also, why is a fixed budget ($69,420) included in the definition? Wouldn’t it make sense for the Ambassador to propose their budget?

1 Like

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@Mantis has requested to withdraw their application. This AIP will be moved to and remain in the Withdrawn AIPs category.

Kind Regards,

-Moonkt

2 Likes

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