Incentivised voting in the Ape Assembly?

General
22

As a reference Mocana requires 5% of Moca holders to reach the quorum.

24

I don’t think a role outlined at 2 hours a week approx to assist the Spokesperson is defined as leading the AA. Unless you are saying the Stewards of the GWG have resigned as it is defined as an initiative of the GWG.

Continuing the discussion from AIP-239: Working Group Guidelines & The Governance Working Group Charter:

1 Like
26

Good to get you and others to add your thoughts here.

27

I also feel incentivising voting too much will lead to uninformed voting.

1 Like
28

Sorry BB… I don’t think incentivising voting with $APE is a good idea. I am afraid it will be gamified or just voting for the sake of getting rewards. I foresee an increase in voting participation but true legitimate voters I am not too sure and this might or may not cause a good AIP to be declined or a not up to par AIP to be approved as I doubt those voters just chasing the rewards will simply pick to approve or reject an AIP just to get the rewards without really going thru the details of the AIP. Just my personal opinion

1 Like
29

To be specific this idea was only for the AA voting (CAP) not for overall snapshot AIP voting.

Also the objective of this threads is to have meaningful conversations and capture the group intelligence of the Ape Assembly.

30

Noted on the AA voting part but the pros and cons of the outcome are pretty much the same to me

31

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.