It is well worth going back and reading this. I 100% agree it is important to be proactive.
Without going too far off topic, we have recently put forward initiatives (in Administrative Review) for the GWG. However, there is nothing stopping a community member coming up with a new initiative to add under the GWG (as long as it includes the necessary budget to implement it). We are already discussing with @LiveFast9986 to incorporating his suggested initiative about temperature checks in the GWG. We have our new budget going up soon (probably within 1 month). So it is best any initiatives get suggested soon or they will require a separate AIP with a separate budget to get added to the GWG mandate.
Let 2024 be the year of the proactive ApeCoin DAO.
This is irrelevant imo as you are talking about when the DAO was setup. Naturally certain processes we have in place now would have been non-applicable at that time.
Again I believe this is also irrelevant as you are comparing a multi-billion dollar decision that will impact every single apecoin holder to the extension of a legacy feature.
You can be proactive and still work within our processes. Instead you decided apechain was a go and no communtiy vote was needed. Obviously multi-billion dollar decisions are not something the communtiy should be trusted with, instead we vote on trivial website additions - yippee!!
Appreciate that you have taken the time to comment, as not many others have.
So in that instance we were replacing a feature already established (legacy), no prior/extra vote would have been needed imo, simply just an RFP. Also explains why there was no ānone of the above optionā - administrators had to be replaced and the process was done fairly, also I donāt remember any community members raising concerns.
I think ānone of the aboveā is really being pressed for now because of the situation and lack of an initial apechain vote, as a way to salvage a bad situation. Should it always be an option during RFP voting - Iām not sure itās necessarily needed when things are done correctly and there are no concerns raised.
Iām in the same boat that I think its rightfully appropriate to have a ānone of the aboveā option in this vote.
However, I also understand and accept that we have been talking about ApeChain for quite some time. Especially if we even compare the votes for AIP-368 and the RFPās:
Top 3 Voting Powers: AIP-368:
Machi - Against - 7.8M
Mocaverse - For - 6.3M
Horizonlabs - Against 5.9M
These 3, at the time make up 20M votes, which is more than either of the votes FOR (10M) or Against (19M). Now compare this against the RFP of which Machi is on AIP-377, Horizon is the author of AIP-378, and Mocaverse clearly indicated they were supportive of the Polygon Apechain (who knows who they will vote for now). These three powerhouse wallets have (had now as Machi has ~1.3M according to AIP-379 at the time of this post) the greatest voting power in ApeCoin DAO. So I do think it was reasonable and in good faith that the RFP for ApeChain was done.
This right here is the big takeaway, at least for me. The RFP structure isnāt the AIP structure.
The RFP structure, based on past actions and intent, is that if an RFP is performed a decision has to be made. There is no try again.
I wouldnt be too hard on yourself over this. We wonāt get a ānone of the aboveā option, but we did shine a massive spotlight on a problem the DAO needs to address.
Iāve already have a post that is pending approval to hopefully give us clarity and some guardrails on all future RFP.
In alignment with the ApeChain RFP process, the APE Foundation is putting forth a proposal which will run concurrently with the Snapshot vote selection of a proponent.
Absolutely! Iām proud of the call the foundation took to reconsider the decision and engage with the community for a vote on ApeChain. It demonstrates a commitment to respecting the structure, community, and the overall process. Each step we take is a learning opportunity, and Iām excited about our progress we doing together.
On Monday Marc (Polygon) said on twitter spaces that in light of none of the others agreeing not to vote (in particular Machi & horizon), he/they have now taken the decision to use their 10 million votes to counter others.
(Maybe the 6 million are part of the 10 - not sure Iād have to look, but tl;dr is Marc confirmed they will use their apecoin to vote on apechain.)
ArbitrumDAO has an interesting discussion going on about self voting that we can learn from - tldr is token holders should vote however they feel like and we honor the results
Donāt create stupid stipulations that arenāt enforceable onchain
If you see from voting, this wallet voted for Polygon. I could be wrong, but I think Marc made a statement at the end of last year, stating 6m ApeCoin.
Polygon - 0xb4E8212005e9C9989F0aD907C5b9eB84d1cC352A
6,021,048.2 APE
The one you linked at 6.7m is horizen, but I did check back on twitter and Marc does say $10m in APE purchased not 10m apecoin - thanks for clarification on that.
I had a quick look and this is the polygon one imo with 6m $ape approx as ties in with mid December purchase.
