Ape16z - an Angel/Seed Fund managed by professional VCs

General
20

That’s a good point but in some projects there’s a significant capital expenditure just to get off the ground.
Compute ain’t cheap, never mind setting all of it up (Frontend + Backend + Compute) . And if you need help from some outside counsel, that’s too bad.

They can use that small grant to get things up and running while the discourse process is ongoing, All projects dealing with MVPs go over from Discourse to Ape16z.

That way they can use that time and money to tailor the product as per the best interests of the DAO. That saves both time and effort.

Productivity :100:

Mission critical amounts, Depending upon the project and its bracket

Seed : Upto $ 5K (Needs approval from 2 council members)

Plant : Upto $ 10K (Needs approval from 4 memb00rs)

Tree : Upto $ 20K (TBD acc to no of Council members)

Forest : Contact us for a custom amount (Needs a Unanimous approval)

Reference : GitHub - w3f/Grants-Program: Web3 Foundation Grants Program

21

where saashaaaaa? :eyes:

does that make sense? Quick followup @Sasha

22

Might surprise folks after yesterday, but I believe this is a great idea for the DAO and would put my APE votes towards it.

1 Like
23

By “counsel,” do you mean the one we currently have, or a new, separate group that’s part of Ape16z?

In general - makes sense. I’d say there needs to be a floor. $100? Not worth anyone’s time. $500? Same. $1000? Probably too much paperwork still. So maybe like 2.5K.

Approvals - maybe 1 person under 5k, 2 under 25, and there should be no prototypes above that. Since approvals will be public, no need to involve too many people - just fire those that screw up :stuck_out_tongue: Efficiency ftw.

But we’re discussing two separate things here - a VC fund, and an MVP grant system. Just to clarify. Both good, but very separate from each other in size, function, regulation/requirements, etc.

Perhaps this makes sense:

  • DAO for non-profit projects, one-offs (events, books/media) or ones we don’t care to have equity in (browser plugins, integrations, etc.)
  • VC fund for investments (someone with years of experience running one needs to submit AIP for it)
  • An MVP working group for MVPs/tiny efforts (add to WG discussions)

All that’s left is an accelerator, but I definitely think we should just refer people to the right one.

1 Like
24

Oh I meant Outside help or whatever by that term. Dunno how we’ll set that up
(I’m not to keen on having dedicated people here, elections, nominations whatevs)

Let’s make our stewards miserable with all that additional work load :joy: (jk)

Ah yes, One trick the VCs don’t want you to know :joy:

As you correctly stated, This sounds more like an Accelerator / Incubator

Oh I meant Outside help or whatever by that term. Dunno how we’ll set that up
(I’m not to keen on having dedicated people here, elections, nominations whatevs)

Let’s make our stewards miserable with all that additional work load :joy: (jk)

Ah yes, One trick the VCs don’t want you to know :joy:

As you correctly stated, This sounds like a Accelerator / Incubator

I’m a big proponent of a native accelerator programme focusing on the growth of the ecosystem.

25

I definitely think that the DAO needs to birth multiple entities to handle the pipeline: mini-grants, pre-seed/seed, main grant body/large AIPs, and VC fund.

Legally, I think this is the way:

DAO commits $X millions into VC fund. Then VC fund spins off an accelerator (if we actually want to run one, which is a whole separate beast) or just splits into two focus areas: pre-seed (<250k) and seed (seeds these days can be in millions).

DAO has zero control over or interest in VC fund. However, the premise of the VC fund is that it is “non-profit,” meaning partners cannot just take all profits. People are paid salaries + commissions, but big profits (if there are any) must be committed to further development of the ecosystem. So it’s an evergreen fund. Should the VC fund be forced to dissolve (death of key members or they want to move on, legal, etc.) and have money in treasury, the money must be put into a new web3 DAO. If members quit/pass, ApeCoin DAO will oversee new DAO creation/member assignment. Why new DAO? b/c otherwise legally this would be a for-profit venture for DAO if it expected profits on vc fund dissolution. The DAO may, however, recap it’s initial money in force majeur event (such as VC custodians dying, world war, etc.) I think legally that’s okay?

VC fund MAY choose to donate all earnings back to ApeCoin DAO at a later date, but is not legally required nor expected to do so. This is key. In 5 years people running the fund may have nothing to do with original custodians so who knows what they pick, but hey as long as it benefitted the ecosystem, this DAO’s mission is fulfilled.

Then, this DAO retains control in two distinct working group categories: mini-grants and large grants/AIPs (for AIPs, the ones that don’t fit VC model or don’t want it). A team may get pre-seed from VC fund and then upon finishing prototype go on and apply for the larger seed from the fund OR go submit for grant from DAO.

Napkin thoughts. Discuss.

4 Likes
26

This structure reminds me of Russian Nesting Dolls : DAO → VC fund → Accelerator

I think there’s an evident need for minimising the bureaucracy associated with sub 5 -10k (maybe less) grants, especially to churn up MVPs for minimise time req for discourse which minimises the friction within the entire purpose.

All profits are poured right back into the business to fund more projects within the ecosystem.

Agree with most of your inputs, Let’s Discuss more

1 Like
27

Yep, this right here. This is what I envisioned for Ape16z :nerd_face:

Any interest in formalizing this @Sasha @CEOofWeb3.0 and turning it into a working doc on Google or Notion or even here?

If we can get the working doc sorta nailed we can then turn it into a pitch deck or infographic to share with the network of fund managers I know (or we know).

For now, a “good enough” pitch will be good enough, if interested that is :laughing:.

Onward
SSP✊🏽

1 Like
28

Yep separate ideas.

Accelerator is AIP-209:

1 Like
29

This DAO has no oversight, we have multiple proposals on deck for various Working Group initiatives, also without any oversight, or even a defined Mission, and we want to add additional parties - also presumably without oversight - to distribute easy money … why not just vote ourselves 1/x of the entire treasury, where is x is the number of active members today.

Then people can distribute it however they see fit.

Who is the auditor for the DAO? Where can we see the audits and auditor’s comments on risks, issues, etc.? What, if anything, has Oseary done with his huge allotment? Who in the DAO is getting paid, in how many ways, how much, how often, for what, and do those payments have any end date?

“Professional VC’s” are … deserving of the reputation they have. Who will choose which VC’s get to dip their straws into the DAO?

Why not do it within a public company format so all of this is taken care of including front-running the securities regulators who are now openly at war with all things crypto?

Let’s finally have a bit of proper oversight and forethought?

30

Yeah, all good points.

If I may, the whole point behind this idea was to try and address the types of concerns you bring up - by setting up a legal fund on existing regulatory rails seeded by the DAO, industry best practices of oversight, auditing, fund allocation, professional management, etc would all be baked in. At least on paper.

Anyway, just an idea that I thought was interesting and a possible solution to the issue of voters wanting some sort of equity – yeah, not perfect but I think still directionally sound.

Thanks for your feedback.

Onward
SSP :fist:t4:

31

VC funds have little oversight or regulation, since their investments are not (yet) public. As a result scams, malfeasance and bad actors abound. Hence their well-deserved abysmal reputation.

The vast majority of professional VCs eat off grift and commissions. If they had to survive on their actual market success, they’d starve quickly.

Unless it is set up with oversight and serious recourse first and foremost, it’s like handing a hungry shark fresh tuna, turning your back and hoping there’ll be BBQ for you to eat when you return.

32

Fair enough.

I guess I’ve just been fortunate enough to work with the small minority of pretty good VCs and Angels who happen to be pretty decent humans too.

Was looking through that lens of my own good fortune when writing up this idea and I guess those were the types of managers I was envisioning being part of Ape16z.

All good.

1 Like
33

I think a Notion would be nice, maybe one sheet for brainstorming, one for research/links, one for draft that we meet to edit together? Ofc everyone’s welcome who can contribute.

Then we can post here for further feedback once it’s in some solidified enough form. I think the final 20-30% of the process should be on here, but the chaotic/initial part can be outside.

I’m back in the US in May, have chores (divorce, selling car, applying for citizenship) so will be busy, but will participate some and then more in June+.

1 Like
34

Let’s do this

I’d set up a Confluence Workspace if @Sasha didn’t entirely hate it :joy:

We just need a collaborative environment, whatever works

Let’s set this up

1 Like
35

Found a clip of @CEOofWeb3.0 talking about Confluence

Back In My Day GIFs | Tenor

1 Like
36

Was just thinking about this after hearing from a friend regarding their approved AIP and how long it’s taken for the funding to arrive. It took them nearly three months to go from Draft stage to official Snapshot approval, and then months later after that approval those funds have still not arrived. For projects relying upon 100% funding in order to even take the first small step forward, this is totally untenable.

While I also hear @br00no’s concerns regarding audits, accountability and oversight, what’s glaringly clear is the velocity of action from Idea phase to receipt of final funds is unacceptably slow for projects who can’t afford to come out of pocket to cover costs while waiting for the money to make its molasses-like trickle down the pipeline.

And this is one that actually got approved, no less.

4 Likes
37

Cheers @CryptoLogically

Proper oversight and accountability doesn’t slow any processes, including funding, at all.

It absolutely SHOULD slow the many proposals currently blazing forward that seek to enshrine a lot of people in highly paid positions to do whatever with zero proper oversight or accountability. But, as always, people won’t care about such things until it’s far too late.

As for this AIP specifically, proper accountability absolutely should be a fundamental part of it.

4 Likes
38

Blame the CTO who set it up for that :joy:

It was my first experience with something like that, Now iI’m familiar with it

39

I agree.

Why in the world is funds dispersal taking so long, does anyone know? Should be a weekly or biweekly event where all co-signers meet and sign transactions to send out funds to all approved AIPs. Simple and easy.