AIP Idea: Six million APE delegation wallet aligned with voters outside of the top 3

Yes it is, and I’m not.

There is a stark difference between a user who has their own ape and the Ape Foundation (or in this particular case, the. Governance Stewards) who is being required (as per this AIP) to act in a specific manner with APE that is delegated to them. You (the user) are free to choose however you want to spend your APE that you delegate. This AIP is asking for the Governance stewards to behave and act in a specific manner using this specific amount of designate APE. This AIP provides no other details or description of how it can or should be used, outside of what is stated. Therefore, the APE must be used as this AIP states for as long as is states (because there is no end date specified, it is considered in perpetuity).

Any transfer of APE out of the treasury wallet and/or repurposed for a specific use is a cost. If APE is to be repurposed for a specific task while also remaining within the DAO, it is still a cost because it means that money is no longer available as treasury funds.

Then you have an issue with this AIP. It is in fact a 6 million $APE AIP and then you need to start discussing issues of trust.

I’m sorry furious, but they are. I don’t know how I can better explain this to you than I already have. You may not believe me but eventually this AIP will make its way through the Facilitators and SC’s review at which point I’m confident they will say this exact same thing as I have and for the same rationale.

Unless this AIP specifies this, there is no obligation to return APE back to the treasury. Another subsequent AIP would be needed to dissolve this delegation of 6 million APE and return the APE back to the treasury.

Quote the part in the AIP that states this then:

It doesn’t. You’re adding in this part. If I or anyone or any entity delegate some or all of their voting power it does not mean the money cannot be used, that is completely false and not how vote delegation works.

The source or holder is irrelevant. We are discussing COST.

Treasury is a term, it is not a singular place or wallet. You are confusing cost with custody method. Let me give you an example: If I hold my company funds in a safe and then decide to bank half does that mean I remove those funds from my balance sheet? Does it mean I cannot spend that half now? Ofc it doesn’t. In the particular scenario you are describing (wrongly btw but I get what you mean) if the administrators decide to create a separate wallet for this AIP then they will simply add the new wallet address to our long list of wallet addresses here (click on “treasury addresses” tab):

The apecoin never leaves our treasury! The administrators will never make an outgoing payment! The money always stays within our treasury. The money is never ring fenced. Pleaae read the AIP again with no preconceptions.

And finally on your last point “this AIP would need another to dissolve it” - that’s how delegation of voting power works - if the delegator spends the money then the voting power automatically degrades, there’s no need for a new AIP, it happens without the need of intervention & we get down to the last 6m held in the treasury.

The whole basis of your argument is that the AIP states the funds cannot be used for anything else and therefore it’s a cost. My reply is simply that’s never requested or stated in this AIP, and the beauty of delegating voting power is the delegator can always spend those funds if needed/desired.

Look I’m going to stop replying on the topic of COST. Your arguments are all flawed and based on a poor understanding. I think I will just have to accept there’s no convincing you. :handshake:

The creation of a delegation wallet will invariable have 6M APE moved from the treasury to a new wallet (or something to this effect) that is then designated to the Governance stewards in order to prevent any type of accidental spend of this APE that is delegated from being spent in the future.

Because the AIP does not expressly state an end date, it is considered to be in perpetuity.

Respectfully, this is how this AIP is to be interpreted. If we have an AIP that is approved that states the creations of a 6M APE delegation, then we will have this 6M APE delegation for the entire existence of the DAO until it is otherwise dissolved. We are obligated to maintain this delegation as expressly stated by the approved AIP.

Respectfully, I’m addressing your issues and trying to correct your misunderstanding in your example between a DAO and an individual but you aren’t giving me the same courtesy as I am you.

Please define Cost then, in your own words.

While “cost” is defined in the template as " Summarize the total budget associated with implementing the proposal. This section will be visible to voters on Snapshot..

I am interpreting it as the the amount associated with the implementation of the proposal that is a deduction from the total treasury amount, in which the remaining balance is freely available to be spent.

While I understand how delegation works for an individual who has free choice to use and spend their money as they choose, the same cannot be said for the DAO who is required to obliged by an approved AIP. As such, I cannot understand how you can see an allocation of 6M ape as anything other than an associated cost for the implementation of this proposal.

This is in reference to the GWG group so they can cast the vote. SMH

Replication of how a delegated vote works is simple. Even if another treasury wallet needs to be created. It would be the last funds to be spent. That would mimic how normal delegation of voting power works.

You state the AIP says the money cannot be used for anything else - IT DOES NOT - there is no request for it to be ring fenced. When/if the treasury gets down to its last 6m then as it’s spent the delegated vote will degrade - thats how delegation works (the funds are never locked/unavailable to be spent).

Look I’m done. You’re whole argument is flawed. You clearly don’t understand how vote delegation works, and you clearly are not reading the words in the AIP corectly.

This is a ZERO COST AIP.

This is your misunderstanding. An AIP must be executed and enforced when it is valid. It cannot be the last funds to be spent because it always has to be used to execute the AIP (unless the AIP states otherwise). As such, this APE cannot ever be spent on anything otherwise because it has to be used to execute this AIP.

This is why it is a cost.

I have tried earnestly to explain this distinction to you.

Thankfully you’re no longer saying this is stated within the AIP. :handshake: We’re getting somewhere. Now let’s build on that - all you need to grasp is how delegation of voting power works, not your interpretation.

This AIP asks for 6m of voting power to be delegated. Delegation of voting power never requires the funds to be locked.

Can’t go back and forth anymore. It’s becoming ridiculous. Thanks.

It’s a requirement in order to execute AIP. Even if its not explicitly stated it is inherently a part of it. I’m not and have not ever changed from this position.

Respectfully, this AIP is implicitly requiring the funds to be locked and be used for this purpose unless otherwise stated.

That is what it means to have this AIP executed as it is currently written. There is nothing in this AIP that states otherwise, as such we have to follow what is stated in the AIP.

I’ve explained the whole concept of delegating voting power to you. These are the key (and only) words within the AIP relating to the treasury:

“will be delegated six million APE from the treasury”

So let’s focus on those words and interpret them correctly.

Delegation never requires money to be locked. How the administrators facilitate replicating a normal delegating of apecoin for voting (never degardes until the wallet gets to that level) is not complicated.

When you understand how delegation works you can then understand the request of the AIP fully.

Have a good evening. Stop replying. Lets go to DMs. We are jointly hijacking this whole thread. Smh.

I’ve been trying to explain what happens should this AIP be executed based on what it says.

In normal circumstances this is true. However, this is not normal circumstances as this is an AIP that is requiring the DAO to execute this. Do you understand and see the distinction?

It is not about me misunderstanding how delegation works, its about me explaining to you the effects of how this AIP is going to be executed and the long term effects of what occurs based on what it states.

While I agree we are jointly blowing up this thread, the need for this distinction and clarity is important. I have done all that I can to express the issue at hand to you and we are now at an impasse. As such, I see no reason to further discussion on the matter with you publicly or privately.

The matter should resolve itself in due time when the Facilitators or SC review this.

Glad you finally agree - THIS IS A ZERO COST AIP AS IT’S WRITTEN. Thanks. :handshake::handshake::handshake:

bro what? i never said such a thing.

What is your problem?

Hi @LiveFast9986 @furiousanger, we’ve been following the ongoing discussion, it appears that the focus has shifted towards logistical details rather than evaluating the OP’s idea itself. While constructive feedback and critical discussions are encouraged, it’d benefit everyone to maintain focus on the merits/challenges of this proposal.

Just to clarify, the author of the proposal should update the Overall Cost section to reflect the inclusion of 6 million ApeCoin, which would be requested for use in the DAO’s decision-making process. Although this amount won’t be an actual expense for the DAO, it needs to be reserved and set aside from the Ecosystem Fund.

Thank you for your ideas @MocaChief [and the ApeCoin DAO community for the insightful discussions].


GM @VonFrontin @furiousanger @LiveFast9986 @blockchainzilla @Lost.Admin @Aepicurean

I’m considering changing a few items for the AIP….

  1. Thoughts on excluding the top 2 delegates versus the Top 3?

  2. Thoughts on putting an expiration at which time funds will be returned to the DAO? 3-month period or 6-month period?

  3. cost of proposal: 6Million ape BORROWED from the DAO… is this acceptable terminology? lol

Appreciate all the feedback, both positive and negative.

1 Like

Initial thoughts:

  1. I wouldn’t necessarily call out Top 2 or 3 delegations, because this could change overnight if a whale or large corporation swoops in and creates another powerhouse. Maybe a more evergreen approach could be “excluding any delegation voting with greater than X $APE”. Keeps the impact the same and adds flexibility for the future.

  2. I would at least keep this for 6 months to pilot the concept. You can always seek a renewal if it works.

  3. Not sure the right word either, but I look at this as DESIGNATING a certain amount of $APE to vote in line with the community (excluding delegations voting with greater than X $APE)


They all make sense to me.

Particularly like the 6-month expiry option. It takes into consideration where the DAO is now. Versus having this in place ‘forever’ - and perhaps becoming unfit for purpose unless it was updated regularly. So a good solution all round imo.

The wording under the overall cost sub heading - happy for admin to call it (as you prob already know my view on the topic :joy:).

1 Like

interesting approach and i like the fact, that whales like moca are thinking about how to better balance the voting system! bullish!


Hi @MocaChief,

The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in less than 24 hours.

  • If you’re content with the feedback received, your next steps are to finalize your proposal using the AIP Draft Template.

  • A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft. Upon receipt of the final Draft, we will review and provide instructions on the next steps.

  • Are you ready to proceed to the next phase or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?

We look forward to hearing from you.