I could write a book (literally) on this. But I will refrain, and instead provide some insight. I mean, it’s not as if anything we say here is going to make a difference either way when the odds are stacked against prosperity and progress. But at least we can go on the record, even if it’s immaterial to the end result.
LETS BEGIN
Though the Ape Assembly discussion is fragmented across Discourse and Discord, the general consensus is that, the Ape Assembly (AA), has been an unmitigated failure. There’s no other way to put it.
AA was an idea that was created via AIP-239.
I won’t get into the rather wonky method of actually being approved to be in the AA because that’s another topic entirely.
There are over 300 people, like me, who qualify to be in the Ape Assembly.
There are currently about 50 (or less) people in the AA. I don’t have the actual metrics, but hopefully @Lost.Admin has them and can provide them for us.
In the recent AA related election, only 30 (!) people voted.
I’m an advanced math guy. So, let’s talk Metrics for Dummies: “Those are terrible metrics”
I recently wrote an in-depth elections related thread where I talk about voting metrics. You should probably read it.
The main problem that I see with AA engagement is that it’s a voluntary activity with ZERO incentives. There are lots of studies on what sparks engagement in voluntary and indeed charity engagement by individuals. I won’t go into that. Go ask Google.
So, you have 304 eligible people for AA, removing the Ape Foundation from that count, you have less than 300. Of that count, only about 50 even bothered to join. And of that count, only 30 bothered to vote in the first AA related election.
As I type this, do you know the number of unique people engaging frequently in the Ape Assembly Discord channel which is the primary AA hub? 17. Don’t believe me? Go count it and report back.
While I’m at it, let me point this out. See this AIP-275 that failed? Guess what it was supposed to be doing.
“This proposal aims to leverage data analysis and segmentation to identify and address barriers to participation in ApeCoin DAO, enabling the development of tailored onboarding incentives and initiatives. By gaining insights into the interests and activity patterns of $APE token holders, the DAO can optimize its governance processes and foster a more engaged and vibrant community.”
That AIP, if it had passed, would have been the spearhead into not only gaining insights via metrics, but also incentives for ApeCoin DAO participation. It failed. Badly. And that was only $15K (!!!)
I urge you to read that AIP. Please. Just read it.
About 48 hrs ago, in a query regarding how to increase AA participation, I responded with this:
That was in response to this:
And it all started here:
Then we ended up here:
Then, while you were probably sleeping, this happened:
Do you see a pattern? As a programmer, AI (long before it became the buzz word it currently is) architect, and someone who is on the autism spectrum, I see patterns - in everything.
Literally nobody knows what’s going on.
There’s no confidence in the mandate and ops of the AA.
The AA is a volunteer position, thus it lacks incentive to join.
The people in leadership have grown - and rightfully so - frustrated by, well, everything.
You know the rather hilarious part? Scroll up to the AA image that I provided. The AA is a volunteer group - completely unpaid - that gets to [checks notes] elect stewards for three PAID working group positions as in:
“The $Ape Assembly was formed to facilitate steward elections for all Working Groups except Governance”
Right. So, let’s keep opining on why AA gets no engagement. And while we’re at it, let’s make things even worse, gut their mandate (which was doomed to fail the minuite someone thought AA, as-is, was a great idea) and setup yet another election that’s going to take away the most impactful part of the AA and the primary reason for its existence.
Which is precisely how we end right here…
MY PERSPECTIVE
That this AIP idea even exists - and if it goes to vote, has a highly probability of passing - signals to me that the Ape Foundation has admitted defeat, and that the Ape Assembly is a FAILURE.
It’s right there in the abstract :
The Ape Assembly was established as a Governance Working Group initiative outlined in AIP-239 that aims to internally elect all future Working Group Stewards. However, with only 30-40 active voters, the lack of participation raises concerns about the credibility those elections would carry.
I have only been here for a month. I joined the Ape Assembly last week - and immediately got up to speed.
I QUIT the Ape Assembly yesterday afternoon, long before this AIP idea went live.
From what I know now, the Ape Assembly has no basis or reason to exist. In corps - at least the good ones - major operational decisions such as AIP-239 which spawned the AA - aren’t made on a whim, or by people without hard data metrics to guide their decisions. Had they taken these steps, they would have seen - clearly - that spawning the Ape Assembly was doomed to failure. As they say, you never know if you don’t try. They tried. And that’s all that matters.
Now, when this AIP eventually goes to vote, because it’s a PAID position, there’s most definitely going to be more interest in it, though it is highly unlikely to reach the fervor of the Special Council elections - which was a social media phenom due to the entrance of @ThreadGuy who brought much attention and hilarous drama to it.
I had expressed interest in this very same Metaverse Working Group where I started maintaining a list of interested parties.
My interest was when it was under the purview of the AA collective which, I assumed, would be a lean, focused and streamlined group - much like the other groups - that would nominate and setup discussions and a credible voting (outside of the DAO wide voting mechanism) for the MWG stewards.
At this point, given the impending and untimely demise of the Ape Assembly, I am considering also withdrawing my interest in the Metaverse Working Group because I no longer have faith in the process nor in the voting (for which I have an AIP idea in progress). And I cannot - in good faith - be a part of something that I neither support nor have faith in.
I hope that you all read this post in the spirit with which it was written.