Facilitator Note #20 : Apes Gotta’ Eat

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