ApeChain: Request for Proposals

[Lost.Admin]

Hi @chimperton,

Looks like we’re producing the intended results already

[bigbull]

Plenty of great points here. We need you posting more in the forum!

I like the questions about Incentive Alignment and the Environmental Sustainability.

[Ape.Admin]

ApeChain RFP - Status Update for Proponents

The ApeCoin DAO has received 4 proposals which are currently on track to qualify for the ApeChain RFP. These are: AIP-377: A-Team, AIP-378: Arbitrum, AIP-384: zkSync, and the Polygon ApeChain proposal.

In order for these proposals to make it to vote, they must clear Administrative Review by January 31, 2024.

Here are the relevant timelines for the remainder of the RFP process:

January 22nd, 2024 @ 6PM PST (1-week from today)

• AIP-377: A-Team, AIP-378: Arbitrum, AIP-384: zkSync, and the Polygon ApeChain ApeChain RFP proposals will go into Administrative Review at this time.
• Any outstanding questions by the Discourse Facilitators must be addressed by, and any requests for edits to the draft AIPs must be completed, by January 22nd, 6PM PST.
• Once the AIPs have reached Administrative Review on January 22nd, 2024, the decision to allow any further edits to the AIPs will be at the sole discretion of the APE Foundation, as is standard for all AIPs.
• During Administrative Review, the APE Foundation and its legal team along with Special Council will review all proposals to:
  • Ensure they meet standard Administrative review criteria of AIPs, and
  • Confirm their eligibility to meet the Request for Proposals: ApeChain per ApeChain: Request for Proposals

January 31rd, 2024 @ 6pm PST

• This is the deadline for all AIPs to clear Administrative Review in order to qualify for the RFP.
• It is the responsibility of the proponents to respond timely and to address potential inquiries during APE Foundation’s Administrative Review phase or it may risk their AIP NOT being eligible to vote for February 1st, 2024.

February 1st, 2024 @ 6pm PST

• This will be the beginning of the voting period for the qualifying ApeChain AIPs which have passed Administrative Review.
• The voting period will last 13 days, until February 14th, 2024, at 6pm PST.
• There will only be one round of voting to determine the ApeChain RFP winner.

We understand that meeting these deadlines might involve coordination with various teams and departments. There will be no deviation from the above deadlines.

It is the proponents’ responsibility to work with the APE Foundation to clear administrative review. The APE Foundation will ultimately make the final decision regarding which AIPs qualify for the RFP and go to vote on February 1st, 2024.

[buuvei]

Let the games begin

[furiousanger]

@umurafan

It would be good if the offers regarding Apechain were presented to the community in a simple table that can be compared.

It would be if there was a right answer; if the authors were not heavily biased towards particular solutions; if the authors were qualified to do so. Unfortunately this is not the case. We have several current and recently ex special council members (and possibly others) involved in certain proposals, so to ask them to produce fair and unbiased tables for comparison imo is asking for more of the same skewed input we have seen from the beginning.

IMO processes like these should always be fair and special council members should always be neutral - and they simply haven’t been - Impartiality has left the building on this one.

[felipesilva]

@furiousanger

It would be if there was a right answer; if the authors were not heavily biased towards particular solutions; if the authors were qualified to do so. Unfortunately this is not the case. We have several current and recently ex special council members (and possibly others) involved in certain proposals, so to ask them to produce fair and unbiased tables for comparison imo is asking for more of the same skewed input we have seen from the beginning.

IMO processes like these should always be fair and special council members should always be neutral - and they simply haven’t been - Impartiality has left the building on this one.

this question is a little complicated

[BAYC]

What about none of the above?

[Moonlyght]

Yes. I stand with matt’s point. We need answers as to why there’s no “none of the above” option included in the AIP.

[bigbull]

You may already be aware of this process, I am including here for others who may find this useful.

Governance

The process is GWG - Facilitators prepare a DAR package then it follow this process below:

https://forum.apecoin.com/t/apecoin-dao-handbook/17062
In Phase 4: The DAR package is reviewed, and if the AIP is complying with DAO-approved guidelines, it becomes a Pending AIP and moves to Phase 5. If a DAR package fails to comply with DAO-approved guidelines, it is eligible for resubmission unless in cases of violation of the law or reasonable suspicion of fraud or other misleading information.

In Phase 5: AIPs that have passed AIP Moderation will then either be tagged as “Straight to Vote” or “Needs Administrative Review.” The “Straight to Vote” tag is for any AIP with costs, content, and implications considered to be straightforward and of no risk to the well-being of the DAO. The “Needs Administrative Review” tag is given for any pending AIP whose costs, content, or implications are considered to be complicated or a potential risk to the well-being of the DAO.

In Phase 6: The Special Council will review AIPs in the Administrative Review category. The Special Council is responsible for ensuring that the costs, content, and implications in AIPs are clear before they are put up for a vote.

Someone asked in Discord @Lost.Admin (facilitators) view on this, he as part of the GWG facilitator team who prepare the DAR packages. However, the final decision in terms of AIP content is not with him or other facilitators but with the Special Council.

Also, you can also find more information related to this in the Transparency Hub here:

https://forum.apecoin.com/t/special-council-weekly-reports-aip-305/19427

Where you can see BoredApeG included this topic it the latest report (Jan 15-21 2024).
“In addition to the usual job responsibilities, the primary focus of my work has been ApeChain…”

[bigbull]

Do you want ApeChain?

This Poll will only run till the end of Jan 2024.

Do you want an ApeChain?

• Yes - Includes anyone of the options coming out of this RFP.
• No - Remain as we are

The Poll will not show who is voted. Also I put this here as a community member for discussion purposes only.

[Moonlyght]

You literally read my mind. It’s worrisome that this AIP could set a precedent influencing future decisions or other AIPs. Since it’s not live yet, hopefully, the Special Council members will take their time to review and make any necessary changes.

And again, I’m not against an ApeChain per se, but just the fact that now we’re forcing the DAO to vote on something without a prior AIP being voted on first.

[adventurousape]

While I understand that this has been a transition period for the Special Council, I’m disappointed by the lack of response from the Foundation and Special Council members involved with the ApeChain RFP. I’d appreciate clarification on how this RFP process aligns with the typical AIP process, where the community has the chance to provide feedback and collectively decide on the DAO’s direction. Especially since there has been clear feedback by multiple people that a “none of the above” option should be included, but yet it wasn’t and there’s been no explanation why.

Additionally, could you provide insight into the changes in sentiments expressed by @capetaintrippy in November?

AIP-377: ApeChain Bid // ApeChain A-Team - Research, Deploy, Manage ApeChain

Not the team here but want to give some color on the RFP process. It’s not up to the SC to decide whether we have a chain or don’t have a chain. It’s up to the community to decide. IF we were to have proposed an RFP the first AIP would be to vote on whether or not we would do an RFP. We are not set up legally in a position where we decide, yes there will be a chain. After the community voted on whether or not we were to do an rfp, we would then seek out those wishing to participate in the rfp. I…

While I appreciate the Foundation’s attempts to streamline things, good communication on things that are setting precedents and community involvement are vital to a DAO. I look forward to your reply.

[capetaintrippy]

AA thanks for bringing this up. I spoke in a personal capacity with that response in what I believed to be true based on the circumstances at the time. We see your comments and concerns above and are working on a response for you. I think my example above highlights the need for communications on this to come directly from the Foundation. As I mentioned, one will be coming shortly.

[Moonlyght]

Great to hear. Please include the “none of the above” option in the final AIP voting. Even if most likely a chain will be voted, it’s important to give a voice to all Apecoin holders.

[Ape.Admin]

After an unprecedented amount of community engagement on the topic of ApeChain, it became clear to the APE Foundation that the vast majority of the ApeCoin community wants an ApeChain and that there would be no economic cost. Including a “none of the above” option could have created the potential for no single ApeChain to obtain the requisite votes, despite a majority of votes voting in favor of an ApeChain.

As highlighted above, please note that no funding is being requested from the Ecosystem Fund for the development or deployment of this community utility. If the ApeChain subsequently requires funding from the Ecosystem Fund, such a request will need to conform to the ordinary proposal process to vote on Ecosystem Fund distributions (i.e. APE Improvement Proposal).

Thank you for your understanding, and we look forward to your participation in future discussions.

Best regards,
APE Foundation

[Moonlyght]

Appreciate the response @Ape.Admin, but even if no funding is requested (which I’m not sure because some of these AIPs are asking for maintenance fees as matt is suggesting above) it doesn’t mean that an option like “none of the above” shouldn’t have been included. It’s just bad practice.

The goal is to give a voice to the whole apecoin community, and by not including a “none of the above” option we’re not giving a voice to those apecoin holders… it’s sad tbh.

[furiousanger]

@Ape.Admin

it became clear to the APE Foundation that the vast majority of the ApeCoin community wants

So however you interpret the will of the community dictates the votes we have and supersedes our processes? That’s absurd.

I only hope this demonstrates how we desperately need a mechanism or similar in place that gives authority back to the people when those who control the power go rogue.

[LiveFast9986]

I made this post in discord and wanted to put it here for other people to see as well.

So I’m going to throw a monkey wrench into the ApeChain discussion.

Setting aside ApeChain itself, the DAO has done one other RFP (that I am aware of), which was the Request for Proposal: Cayman Islands Administrator for the APE Foundation.

Where, and this may surprise some of you, the Snapshot vote to select did not have a “none of the above” option: Snapshot

The precedence for not having the option is there. However, if we take a step back and look at the bigger picture the issue is more directed towards the RFP process. I think we should take this time and opportunity to discuss setting up rules, frameworks, and guides on how to set up an RFP, what it entails, and what does it mean to have a community engagement on a specific topic to warrant an immediate call to action vote on it.

[BoredApeG]

Strictly speaking in my personal capacity…

Let’s go back even further…how do we think the DAO/APE Foundation ended up with Cartan in the first place? How about its legal firms (general counsel and Cayman counsel)? It’s original Directors? It’s Registered Office? Do we think the APE Foundation simply spoke to one provider for each service and accepted their bid without entertaining multiple options?

I’ve truly never directly asked about the above either but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out - I’m speaking from the perspective of a community member that can do the maths…the best providers didn’t just magically appear. Of course the APE Foundation has run its own RFPs.

@LiveFast9986

The precedence for not having the option is there. However, if we take a step back and look at the bigger picture the issue is more directed towards the RFP process. I think we should take this time and opportunity to discuss setting up rules, frameworks, and guides on how to set up an RFP, what it entails, and what does it mean to have a community engagement on a specific topic to warrant an immediate call to action vote on it.

This is fantastic. Governance is ever evolving and should be improved. I see far too much energy spent around the DAO on reactions but rarely putting forward the solutions they wish to see.

This ApeChain discussion has been around for months. At this time, I am reminded when the first Special Council elections were to occur but no one from the community stepped up to put up a proposal to create elections so they had to extend for another 3-months. Back then it was cited to be the ApeCoin community’s fault for its inaction! No one else was to blame but the ApeCoin community - there was plenty of time. At first everyone was angry, then collectively it was “okay they’re right, we should have done something back then if we cared enough”. Personally, that was what motivated me to kick start a big post on thinking around elections: Nomination & Election Process: Strawman Proposals for YOU to build upon! Because at the end of the day if we want meaningful action around here, we need to be proactive, not reactive.

This entire discussion has been telegraphed for months and there has been plenty of time for people to propose how they wish to see things. I was on spaces literally for a couple of months while Polygon had their AIP asking if anyone in the ApeCoin community was going to put up an RFP process? Crickets - nada, no one willing to open their discourse and put up a proposal. And now we are here and people are trying to point fingers? The ApeCoin community, collectively, had plenty of opportunity to continue refining this process. If people want to create more formalized structures going forward around all types of RFPs, then great, put up an AIP.