Back to no-fun mode. My recent comments on transparency: AIP-277: Re-evaluating ApeCoin DAO Special Council Salaries Structure - #38 by br00no
Please read this post as if it’s written in a chill, cooperative tone. Not combative or casting aspersions on anyone, because that’s not my intention whatsoever but in print and on hot topics that can easily be lost.
I’m among the first, possibly the first, to raise some of the concerns now being more widely expressed on these topics.
Not clout chasing here, just saying I know what it’s like to find this stuff out by surprise and the hard way. I mentioned as much in my ApeCoin radio interview last week. It’s a big part of why I stepped up to be appointed to SC, not just complain.
I’ve also learned the hard way in my own various IRL endeavors that it’s never as easy as it seems from the outside, especially when dealing with fast-shifting and hostile regulatory environments. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
As an SC candidate, primarily with a platform of transparency, what I will NOT do is comment on specifics as it’d either seem like self-serving, pandering, etc. and that ain’t my vibe. On that, for now, I will abstain, plus it can’t be meaningfully done without much more details that we do not have.
On this I feel compelled to “speak” however:
Not IMO. The Admins act only on direction of the DAO, via Special Council, so it’s SC who does that. Or should, IMO. Admins work for the DAO - for us - not the other way around.
I don’t believe that an actual securities lawyer is even involved anywhere so far, or anyone with SEC regulatory compliance experience.
As for treasury, the word “oversight” appears once on the Foundation’s homepage, and not relating to ethical, regulatory or financial concerns. The word “audit” appears zero times.
When I’ve asked who the Foundation’s auditors are, I received no reply which suggests there is none. In any case, such audits including plain-language ethical and risk assessments should be available to all token holders at all times. My intent is to affect this.
I’d also like to see, or make happen, details of what people do in all paid roles. At least an outline - meetings, minutes. Nothing violating the DAO’s trust, NDAs, or privacy of AIP applicants, etc. of course.
I feel these should’ve been in place since Day 1. I do NOT blame anyone for that, and few seemed to care when I began raising such concerns. Here we are now however, and it’s time to put such things in place not to punish, disrespect or doubt anyone who has been or is in those roles, but to prevent bad actors someday accessing or compromising those roles.
Let’s start with clarity on who is responsible for what however. Let’s not presume, good or bad.
And please let’s not drag the token’s nominal price into this. That just gives regulators easy ammo. Don’t risk wrecking the whole works.
The potential to do good here is epic. Within the DAO in the form of personal development through roles and mentorship, maybe access to health care such as paid-for counseling (my AIP that I do feel strongly about), and legit good works that can be done far beyond the DAO’s token holders or grant recipients.
I still believe this… note the date: