Facilitator Note #20 : Apes Gotta’ Eat

[SmartAPE]

@furiousanger

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).

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.

Locked Tokens and Token Delegation Proposals

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.”

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.

@LiveFast9986

So this is why I’m saying this is not a 0 cost AIP. Just because you aren’t receiving any apecoin and apecoin isn’t “leaving the treasury” doesn’t mean that this isn’t 0 cost. Asking to delegate 6.3M $APE is effectively asking for 6.3M $APE to not be used for any other purpose except for the purpose of voting. Which means that this proposal is asking for 6.3M $ape to be set aside and used strictly for voting. Yes you aren’t receiving any ape, but, in the event this passes, its likely that the $ape will be transferred to a separate wallet from one or more of the treasury listed wallets in order to be delegated and taken out of circulation from the treasury to prevent it from being spent. Thus it would be construed as a cost.

If you delegated your voting power to me, but you spent your ape, I have less voting power because you spent your ape. I only have as much voting power as the wallet or amount you delegated towards me. Should either of those change, my voting power changes accordingly.

Does this make better sense of how I’m seeing this?