AIP Idea: should/could lockup periods be extended?

Cobie recently posted a thought-provoking article about the issues with DAOs and the potential for abuse by board members wrt the upcoming staking implementation which could coincide with an unlock period for a large portion of the ApeCoin supply

In an effort to prevent dumping from this/these investors and board members, would it be beneficial or possible to extend these lock-up periods? Is this a good idea, or an atrocious one?

I think the goal of ApeCoin, since it is based on becoming the de-facto currency for Web3, should be significantly longer term, and staking itself should not be used as a smokescreen to keep retail in while letting insiders dump.

Would love feedback on this concept

  • crumble.eth/totty.eth
2 Likes

Personally, I think Yuga selected trustworthy individuals to help take charge on ApeCoin. I have faith that there will not be dumping from the board, and I think the lock up period seems like a fair amount of time to me.

2 Likes

I would normally agree, but this is crypto and there are billions of dollars at stake

We should push for more trustlessness instead of just trusting the board to do the right thing as they unlock millions of tokens when staking will be implemented

1 Like

So, I completely understand where you are coming from here. And crypto no doubt is full of scams and people trying to cheat off of one another. There will always be grifters. It’s something we cannot avoid.

Whoever the contributors are (some are the exchanges right?) I think they were told they were going to get paid based on the lockup/allocation that was explained to us. I just don’t see adding more time to the lockup as being something that will neccessarily stop those who want to sell from selling. And I do think those who are contributing or have contributed to ApeCoin should get their fair share sooner rather than later, personally.

Also, in regards to the article, I’ve never spoken to Cobie, but using the word “bribe” to describe staking in the ecosystem pools seems rather inflamatory. Yes, Yuga and the DAO will pay one more apecoin to not sell their NFT or their apecoin… They also are providing us with many many many additional perks to not sell our crypto. By that logic, renting us a party yacht on the Hudson on Halloween and booking the Strokes for Ape Fest were a “bribe” to not sell. The longer one holds the more perks they get. I didn’t agree with the article.

This is just my opinion though others may feel differently?

3 Likes

idk, i am strongly in the camp that modern staking is just a smokescreen for dumping. i have used this to my advantage a handful of times bc it’s easy to see through if you are used to this space

all in all, i don’t think it makes sense to just trust the VCs that invested and are taking a large supply of ApeCoin. there is no reason they won’t dump, and if the mission is really to make ape the preferred currency of web3, i dont see how 6 month and 1 year lockups coincide with this mission

if the VCs and Yuga really felt like this mission was the goal, why not make the lock-up years long? it’s all a smokescreen, and yes staking is used often to drive focus away from VC contributions in general. look up most staking ERC-20 tokens, almost all are down bad from when staking launched, even looks

1 Like

(can’t edit)

to be clear, my issue is not with funds being reserved for launch contributors, my concern is that a short lock-up period is perpendicular to the stated missions of ApeCoin

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.