Facilitator Note #20 : Apes Gotta’ Eat

Announcements Governance Working Group
1

Hello again ApeCoin Community :apecoin:

We’re excited to share some important updates in our ongoing efforts to support the community.

Here are the latest developments:

Ethereum-Based Token Returns :chains:

We are pleased to announce that Ethereum-based assets and gross revenue may be returned directly to the DAO in a permissionless process using a recently created wallet address.

The designated wallet address for these transactions is: 0x5AC40A1175715F1c27e3FEAa8C79664040717679.

We anticipate that the Foundation may use an ENS address to simplify identifying this wallet at some time in the future, any further updates will be posted for the community as the details become clear.

Tranche Funding :spiral_notepad:

In an effort to increase clarity around proposed costs, content, and the implications for the DAO, if you’re an AIP author requesting a grant in excess of $100,000 please be prepared to structure your request for funding in tranches (or milestone-based disbursements) when drafting your AIP. Don’t worry if you’re not quite sure about the best way to set this up, the Facilitator team will be happy to help guide you through the process.

Voting Implications for AIP-436 :ballot_box:

AIP-436 has been approved by the DAO, which establishes that any AIP requesting more than $250,000 USD would require a super-majority “For” vote of 69% or more in order to pass. For proposals with requests in $APE, a USD-value determination would be made once the proposal is reviewed and before it goes to vote. In these cases, the AIP’s Overall Cost section and Snapshot entry would reflect both the requested value in $APE, as well as in USD.

Locked Tokens and Token Delegation Proposals :lock:

The treasury may delegate locked tokens for voting purposes. Proposals seeking to establish delegations using locked tokens from the treasury may indicate a “zero-cost” as these funds would not leave the treasury, additionally, these proposals would require a finite delegation time frame after which all tokens are to be fully “returned.”

AIP implementation is administered by the Ape Foundation. Implementation may be materially altered to optimize for security, usability, to protect APE holders, and otherwise to effect the intent of the AIP. Any material deviations from an AIP, as initially approved, would be disclosed to the APE holder community.

The BANANA Bill Intake Form :banana:

The BANANA BILL is here to give apes another opportunity to eat !

Following the DAO’s approval of The BANANA Bill, we are excited to share that the BANANA Bill application form is open and applications are already rolling through the process!

You can access the application form here: apechain.com/banana-bill

In an ongoing commitment to bolster the development of APECHAIN, the Foundation has also begun to provide support for the Official APECHAIN Telegram Channel as of exactly one month ago today!

If you haven’t already, join the ape community in our newest official communication channel:
APECHAIN Telegram

See you there!

-ApeCoin DAO Community Discourse Facilitators

5 Likes
2

Thanks for the update @Lost.Admin

Any process updates on ApeChain / Banana Bill would also be great? What’s the timeline for funding? How long should applicants wait before hearing back on proposals? What’s the feedback process look like? etc.

1 Like
3

That sort of information should normally be found in Implementation Update | AIP-454: The BANANA Bill: Apes Gotta Eat

2 Likes
4

I noticed this wallet has a balance of 4,680 USDC.

Are there any rules and/or suggestions for what Ethereum-Based Tokens can be included here?

Also any plans for a similar wallet based on ApeChain?

1 Like
5

Hi Lost,

Surprised to see such a change in tone regarding the “zero-cost” label from you - but so be it.

Can you take the time to explain how “locked tokens” stored on CB will be used to vote on snapshot? (As in detail the process.)

Will “locked tokens” need to be TRANSFERRED into a self-custody wallet for example?

And does this mean we may get to a stage when spending “locked tokens” becomes a thing?

Thanks.

1 Like
6

Hi Lost,

Couple more questions - can you point me to where we voted on the $100k tranches? And will this be applied to all DAO costs such as administrative and working groups for example?

Thanks

2 Likes
7

Pretty sure you can’t delegate tokens locked in a CEX. Which means that they would have to be transferred out of Coinbase.

The tokens are still locked - not spent; and so, only their location is changed. To me, that amounts to a 0 cost since they aren’t actually spent. I was pondering this as I was writing my AIP-474 alongside Gerry’s AIP-489, both of which are currently up for vote and are about to fail in spectacular fashion.

2 Likes
9

Want to thank Yat for pointing this out:

AIP-436 specifically states a 69% threshold will be needed for “spending or allocating” more than $250k dollars of DAO resources.

@BoredApeG @Waabam

Can you please offer transparency into the decision made to apply a zero-cost label to AIP-489 when it clearly contradicts AIP-436.

Thanks

IMG_0714

2 Likes
10

For context, below is my response to that @yatsiu post regarding AIP-436: Enhancing Financial Decision-Making with Super Majority Voting of 69% for Allocations over US $250,000

to-yat

Ref:

AIP-489: Restoring Balance

AIP-474: Delegated ApeCoin Community Voting Wallet

1 Like
11

I did respond to this - copy & pasting for discussion to continue here:

X reply to Derek:

“AIP-436 made several references which make clear that ‘allocation’ and ‘spending’ are interchangeable.”

This is incorrect. The words are used separately and demonstrate a clear distinction is being made. (See attached screenshot below.)

Show me where in AIP-436 (add screenshots) references showing these words are interchangeable as you claim

Thanks.

IMG_0714

1 Like
12

There’s also a timeline that one could argue clearly demonstrates the distinction made in AIP-436 between “spending or allocating” in May was done so as a direct response to people wishing to allocate $ape from the DAO treasury (not spend), for voting/delegation purposes which started in March; (ensuring a zero-cost label couldn’t be applied to these types of requests).

This screenshot was the first suggestion of creating a massive 6.3m voting block by allocating treasury $ape (not spending) for voting/delegation purposes, with a zero-cost label attached (note the highlighting):

IMG_0720

Then came AIP-436 which specifically made a distinction between spending and allocating - so why use two words “spending or allocating”? I’d argue this was because of the above idea presented in March (note the highlighting):

IMG_0721

Then we have Lost, who was directed by the foundation, four days after AIP-436 was presented on the forum, dictating that a zero-cost label cannot be applied to an idea seeking to delegate (not spend) apecoin from the treasury (note the highlighting):

IMG_0722

People can make their own minds up. Even Yat (ex-special council member and Animoca chairman) has raised concern.

Every AIP should be treated equally - there should be no extra favour and/or special arrangements given to certain people - and yet here we are.

Conclusion: AIP-436 clearly differentiates between spending and allocating - this means AIP-489 should have had the 69% threshold applied.

I’m not even going to get into how dangerous moving and using locked tokens can be - I’ll save that for an incoming AIP when current voting ends.

Happy for any pushback with references or solid reasoning.

Thanks.

1 Like
13

Oddly, I don’t see that in my feed or I would have responded to it.

First things first. I disagree with your assertions here. I will explain why.

allocate - a verb

allocate

chatgpt_allocate

In my post to Yat, I used the Banana Bill as an allocation of funds that are to be spent at a later date.

Now lets examine AIP-436 and why I believe that moving funds - which aren’t to be spent - from one place to another is a contextual use of the verb “allocate”.

Here the use of allocations is clearly defined and isn’t ambiguous.

Here the use of allocations is also clearly defined.

And now for the fun and ambiguous part whereby allocation and spending are used interchangeably.

Why am I suggesting this? Because the author - in the core of the proposal - never made this distinction; instead strictly sticking to “allocations”. This alludes to allocations which are either targeted for spending at some point or for immediate spending from the treasury. The latter would apply to proposals which get the funds upon the proposal passing, while the former would apply to proposals for which funds are earmarked for later spending.

Now for the part which provides context to the “allocations” v “spending” dilemma.

As you can see above, this specifically points to a value proposition. So, how did you arrive at the conclusion that somehow proposals which request $APE for delegation and not to be spent would require a $USD conversion? That would only occur if the tokens were going to be spent.

Lets examine a viable use case for funds allocated for spending - at a later date. A proposal can very well ask for funds - as in allocated - to be spent later. To wit: AIP-454

Fast-Forward to:

AIP-474:

AIP-489:

BOTH of these proposals clearly state that 0 ApeCoin is being “allocated” or “spent”. Why? Because the token never actually leaves the treasury; they are delegated via a wallet designed specifically for voting. Thus, they are “allocated” - not “spent” - for the purpose of being delegated to a voting wallet.

To infer that somehow these two proposals are “allocations” within the context of AIP-436, would imply that they are going to be spent in some fashion, and that they actually leave the treasury custody. By that summation, you are then suggesting that all the 6.1M delegated tokens that Animoca allocated to Moca can somehow be spent by Moca via such allocation or have been “spent” by Animoca simply because they were moved from one wallet to another.

Verily I say that while the Foundation can very well spend the treasury funds, so too can Animoca. In fact, it’s precisely why my AIP-474 gives a one year time limit, after which they can be clawed back and sent to the treasury. Animoca has no such restrictions, and thus can spend their own tokens at will. In the case of other delegations, they can’t do that because the tokens belong to others who too have the ability to spend or withdraw their delegated tokens at will.

To be clear: delegated tokens aren’t being spent. That’s the crux of this argument.

In conclusion, one can logically and sensibly deduce that a proposal with an allocation that does NOT require funds to leave the treasury custody, would amount to a 0 cost allocation, thus making it different from an allocation that requires funds to leave the treasury for spending at some point in time. i.e. AIP-474/859 v AIP-454

Q.E.D

14

Your REDRESSING THE BALANCE - APE FOUNDATION will delegate 6.3million $APE to a community VOTING wallet discussion (it wasn’t a proposal) was in the same vein as AIP-474 and AIP-489, and actually had an even more involved discussion than these two new ones.

That said, right there in the image of what @Lost.Admin indicated, he clearly states that

“Although this amount won’t be an actual expense for the DAO, it needs to be reserved and set aside from the Ecosystem Fund”

That amounts to an allocation of treasury funds.

Why six months ago he said that it would still amount to funds being spent probably means that they have since received guidance which countered and clarified that original assertion. Hence this Aug 16 (this incident thread) excerpt which btw came after both AIP-474 and AIP-489 which, like your Mar discussion, sought a community voting wallet. And that’s why during admin review both AIP-474 and AIP-489 were allowed to indicate a 0 cost because the Foundation rightfully concluded that delegated tokens aren’t being spent, and thus would come at NO COST to the treasury.

Also, this comment in that thread by @LiveFast9986 is remarkable in its simplicity. However, I still disagree - as does the Foundation - that delegated tokens come at a cost. And so, the logic is flawed. Aside from the fact that he also incorrectly equates delegation to ownership.

15

This is the foundation clearly stating via Lost that the creation of a delegation wallet would require a price tag to be attached and a zero-cost label would not cut it.

IMG_0722

This is still applicable regardless of the tokens being locked or unlocked - “it needs to be reserved and set aside from the ecosystem fund” - locked tokens will be transferred from our secure and insured coinbase wallets into a self custody option.

Anyway - let’s agree to disagree and on to the next. :handshake:

And vote NO TO AIP-489 to send a strong message. :muscle:

16

Yes that was the case back then. And this is me saying that they have since taken another look and provided a different guidance which we now use.

That’s no different from other guidance revisions that have come down in the past; particularly this rather infamous “Yeah, the DAO can totally receive income” from Nov 2023 Clarification - AIP returning value back to the ApeCoin DAO which was a result of much noise and furor sparked by yours truly back when I was arguing that a DAO designed to only give money away was doomed to fail. Shockingly, here we are. Who knew? :roll_eyes:

It’s no longer applicable because we now have an overriding guidance from the Foundation that is tasked with such things.

And I remain confident that tokens which only change location aren’t in the same class as those which are allocated to be spent.

It’s great that we can all have differing opinions about things, while keeping it civil. :handshake:

LOL. I wouldn’t worry about that, both AIP-474 and AIP-489 have failed spectacularly. Next up will be my second attempt AIP-471: Special Council To Propose Voting System Reform

1 Like