ApeChain: Request for Proposals

General
22

Re Vote whether to have ApeChain or not

Seems logical to vote to officialize if ‘we’ want any ApeChain, it’s somewhat cumbersome and slows things further, yet also seems necessary for proper process. Each ApeChain proposer would likely vote yes, with the biggest wallets (Horizon/Machi/Polygon), meaning auto passing of such vote regardless of the smaller wallet holders opinion…but process is process and the DAO is the DAO…however I agree it does indeed seem to make sense for such a vote to exist for us to comply with our own processes.

Re use case for ApeChain

I’m currently accepting $APE as payment for The Public Bored digital billboard truck I leased for next month at the ETH Denver event, problem is the gas…my pitch is that anyone, anywhere, for any budget can buy space on these billboards, but a $2 billboard spot gets destroyed by a $10-$100 gas fee

I’ve been mitigating this by offering 20% bonus/free display space to everyone who pays using $APE, but why should the builder of an $APE project has to burden the gas just to encourage ppl to pay with $APE? It feels like the forcing square peg in round hole scenario

Furthermore, I’ve been offering to pay rewards/payouts to every $APE holder who refer people who buy display space on the billboard, but again, giving these rewards is redundant if/when gas is higher than the payout amount

ApeChain would solve these problems for me, and for other builders trying to use $APE for smaller style payments like my project The Public Bored is doing www.publicbored.com

I know this initiative isn’t from a major gaming studio, or a flashy Defi project, but what I’m doing is a legitimate, scalable, Venture Backed style initiative with Unicorn potential and major disruption of an multi-billion dollar industry, directly in the public eye, all in the name of Ape. Gas fees shouldn’t be standing in my way.

I really hope we can find a solution to make it easier for ppl to actually build with $APE and then focus convos on that…actually building with $APE

:heart: :gorilla:

12 Likes
23

Will there be an update on this? It’s been a long time since the deadline. It would be good if the offers regarding Apechain were presented to the community in a simple table that can be compared. It may be useful for those who cannot master the subject or who miss some details.

4 Likes
27

@Lost.Admin stop playing with the pin button. :joy:

5 Likes
28

Hi @mattborchert,

Looks like we’re producing the intended results already :apekinhype::apekincoins: :apekincoins: :apekinhype:

2 Likes
29

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

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

5 Likes
30

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.

5 Likes
31

Let the games begin

2 Likes
32

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. :man_facepalming:

8 Likes
33

this question is a little complicated

4 Likes
35

What about none of the above?

8 Likes
36

Yes, why is there no “None of the above” or “Do not build ApeChain” option to prevent ApeChain from moving forward if that is the will of the people? We never voted the concept of ApeChain through, so this is effectively forcing the DAO to build another chain without vote.

@Lost.Admin can you get any relevant people involved in this? Feels like this one could be a pretty big issue.

For reverence, here’s the AIP that’s about to go up to vote which will force an option to be picked.

13 Likes
37

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.

6 Likes
38

Others like @furiousanger noticed the lack of a no / do not move forward option far sooner than me. I (incorrectly) assumed that they wouldn’t actually try to force one of the options through at all costs. Guess I was wrong. :upside_down_face:

So as an extreme example, I could submit an AIP called “Give Matt and Moonlyght Money.” There would be 4 options for various amounts of $APE that we’d be sent. 10k, 100k, 1 million, and 10 million. If the Ape Foundation said this wasn’t acceptable as it’s forcing the community to give us money, I’d point to this AIP. If they still declined, I’d take them to court and use this AIP as an example of the same concept being allowed to go to vote, showing how the rules are not being applied consistently. Clearly I’m being silly with the example given, but if this goes to vote it’s a big ol’ mess for the DAO. I’m honestly shocked that this is going up as-is. At best, this feels unethical. That’s me being nice.

To be clear:

  • We never voted to start an RFP process for ApeChain
  • We never voted for any of these proposals to be accepted
  • Some of these proposals in slightly different forms HAVE FAILED
  • We’re not being given an option to vote this down

There are very valid points to be made for keeping $APE on L1 without an L2 / sidechain option. While I would be extremely surprised if the none of the above option actually won, as all of these proposals will attempt to buy their way to victory (yay plutocracy!), it’s an absolute requirement that we’re allowed to vote no on all of the above.

6 Likes
39

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:

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:

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…”

5 Likes
40

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
0 voters

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

6 Likes
41

Thank you for the above information.

@BoredApeG and @Waabam - now is a good time to speak up on this. This AIP has never had a supporting AIP pass which approved it in concept and is being put up to vote with no way of voting it down. I believe this breaks fundamental DAO processes. Why is this occurring?

Should this go up to vote as is, I’ll work with a contact at a law focused Youtube channel with several million subscribers to see if they’re willing to cover this story. Given the highly unlikely nature of this being voted down if the option were appropriately included, I do not understand why you’re attempting to skirt around handling this the right way. Might I further add that with @Airvey being closely tied to Horizen Labs, that this is a very, very, bad look.

4 Likes
42

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.

2 Likes