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

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.