Oh, right. But most of the feedback I’m seeing here is to not give delegation rights to holders of the derivative. I assume this means that they could not stake until they own the underlying NFT.
Are you proposing that the DAO help buyers of any/all NFTs? How is this more appropriate than focusing on the BAYC ecosystem?
Can you help define $APE ecosystem and how it is different from BAYC ecosystem?
In this case the rename/relogo seems to make sense. Why is it an “ApeCoin DAO” if it has nothing to do with apes?
Is this a point of discussion/debate or does the DAO have a proper charter now? One could argue that it was intended to support the BAYC ecosystem, but Yuga was so eager to distance themselves (and therefore stay out of the SEC’s crosshairs) that they left it effectively rudderless.
1 Like
I would go with whatever the AIP lays out. The website is whatever someone (whoever built the website) wanted it to be at that time.
I don’t have any Yuga assets other than $ape so I don’t know a whole lot about the staking mechanisms, but if the DAO technically owned the asset on layaway until it was fully paid would the DAO be able to stake the asset and collect the staking rewards? Would this be enough to make this AIP a viable option to benefit the DAO?
1 Like
Technically, yes. But I didn’t propose this because there is often push back on whether the DAO can or would want to generate revenue or make a profit.
On the topic of BAYC ecosystem vs. NFTs generally - I’m not inherently opposed to that approach but wonder if this idea is viable given the amount of coin the DAO would have to allocate to support the entire market vs. a specific ecosystem.
2 Likes
Secengjeff - Thanks for the idea.
Just a quick suggestion, would it be possible to show a brief calculation on how the layaway contract works? Thanks.
Goku
1 Like
What about an enhanced incentivised locking $APE staking contract, maybe partner with BEND or Paraspace where lowest entry …right now a BAKC was available if someone was to lock say 2000 $APE for 12months with an increase in staking % earn maybe 100% at the end of the 12 months the $APE can be unstaked. Sending the 100% earned to the APEDAO
I created an AIP idea from my info above feel free to pick it apart or maybe a few folks interested in seeing something like this happen could brainstorm/work together
2 Likes
This sounds like the kind of product that either ParaSpace or BendDAO would want to create for themselves, for profit. What is your thinking around ApeCoin DAO sponsoring it? A grant?
Sure, here is an example with totally made up variables:
- Buyer chooses a NFT with a cost of 30,000 $APE
- Buyer stakes 3,000 APE (10%) and receives a derivative (exact copy of that NFT on an ApeCoin contract)
- The original NFT is locked in an ApeCoin contract and is an asset of the DAO, on layaway to the buyer
- 12 months later the buyer chooses to fully own the NFT. They stake an additional 27,000 $APE, the NFT is released to them, and the derivative is burned.
At scale, we would need to decide how much $APE to allocate to (1) development; and (2) NFT purchases. Let’s assume that we allocate 30,000,000 $APE. This budget would need to be managed by the DAO by adjusting the staking %. It might be a scale that moves between 10% - 90% based on the project’s liquidity.
Let’s say for illustration that we set it at a fixed 20% and the floor prices are 30,000 $APE (BAYC) and 6,000 $APE (MAYC). This would allow the DAO to carry between 800 and 4,000 NFTs on layaway at any given time. That number would be much higher if we made the % variable.
Similar to what you posted below but on a trial run basis, the DAO wouldnt “profit” per say but have the $APE returned. An increased % would allow the applicant to earn a little say 10-15%. But yes more of a grant 100k $APE would be an investment in the future of the DAO by empowering those that are unable to outright buy an asset at this time with an option to join the club. Showing the NFT community the APEDAO is truley for all.
I do thinolk something like this would be great but should start on a much smaller basis/commitment from the DAO, I think a smaller ask like 100k APE could establish something bring 20+ new members and could always be extended/granted more APE if succesful.
1 Like
Keep in mind that there are fixed costs to launching this program. If we started extremely small the ROI would be poor.
If folks are generally positive on digging into this further what I could propose is drafting an AIP that authorizes the drafting of a product requirements doc and RFP process where we would approach BendDAO, ParaSpace, Horizen or any other qualified companies to see if this is something they would be interested in building.
2 Likes
Well going under the assumption that the DAO cant profit or earn my idea was to untilmatly replace what APE is intially spent/used. I do think this idea has wheels, another would be for the DAO to purchase some assets and relist them in the APE marketplace for $APE and simply create a contract that allows a specific individual and option to make 12 monthly payments using APE to eth value at time asset was putchased by the DAO.
At current rates
BAKC 2.50 eth (2315 APE) payback 193 APE monthly for 12 months (could always pay off early but min per month required, if default or failure to pay forfeit of any APE already paid)
MAYC 6.4eth (5911 APE) payback 492 APE monthly
If $APE goes up or down in dollar value in the interim that is a loss or profit by legal, accounting and taxation standards.
2 Likes
Well then the actual USD price would need to be established and once purchased use that #. Beneficial to thee applicant and no potential loss for the DAO, requiring the applicant to send $APE to repay would be beneficial to the DAO because if the applicant didnt hold the APE they would need to purchase regardless of price.
I guess we’ll find out when there’s a Mission. For now it is expressly NOT to be a wink-nudge arm of Yuga promotion and price propping-up. It’s not for me to say where the line is, however I’m sure regulators are looking forward to that discussion and are well prepared for it.
Perhaps, but there’s a line somewhere. Terms “thinly-veiled” and “disingenuous” will certainly apply at some point, if not here. Examples that do not prop up prices of $APE are virtually every single payout we’ve made as larger unlocks come due.
Every AIP and salary is mostly cashed-out to fiat which adds to floating supply and depresses the price, while few if any AIPs have added true token utility or value in holding the token. Nor is that supposed to be our focus, or arguably even an overt consideration.
People often conflate more widespread use of something with higher intrinsic value or greater demand - however that’s not at all a given.
To be clear I’m posting these examples as generalities here, not directly re: you or this AIP in particular, though I believe these general points should be considered in context of this AIP.
This applies in certain cases like, for example, the balance sheet of a public company. In this particular scenario, if we’re dealing exclusively in $APE and not making a profit there is no need to worry about the fiat conversion.