Proposal Name: Ape Assembly - Fostering Growth and Empowerment in ApeCoin Communities through Inclusion and Self-Governance
Proposal Category: Informational
Abstract:
The Ape Assembly is a community-driven initiative to empower ApeCoin communities to allocate funds from the ApeCoin central treasury to their creators and small businesses. The Assembly will not perform reviews of funding proposals but will support communities with funding and guidance to ensure that their creators and small businesses have the resources they need to thrive.
Motivation:
The ApeCoin community recognizes the value of supporting its creators and small businesses. By providing funding and resources, we can help these groups to grow and succeed, further strengthening our community and ecosystem. The Ape Assembly aims to empower communities to do just that, by providing the means for them to allocate funds to their creators and small businesses.
Rationale:
The Ape Assembly will be a non-invasive community-driven initiative that provides funding and guidance to communities to allocate funds from the ApeCoin central treasury to their creators and small businesses. The Assembly will not perform reviews of funding proposals, but will work with community leaders to ensure that their creators and small businesses have the resources they need to succeed.
Specifications:
Eligibility: Any community that utilizes ApeCoin as their main economy can apply to be a part of the Ape Assembly.
Application Process: Community leaders can apply to join the Ape Assembly by submitting a proposal on the ApeCoin forums. The proposal should include:
The name of the community
The number of members
A description of how the community will allocate funds to its creators and small businesses
A plan for how the community will monitor the use of funds
The amount of funding requested from the ApeCoin central treasury
Funding: Each community that participates in the Ape Assembly is eligible for up to 15,000 ApeCoins per month from the ApeCoin central treasury. The funds should be used to support the community’s creators and small businesses.
Monitoring: The Ape Assembly will not perform reviews of funding proposals but will work with community leaders to ensure that their creators and small businesses have the resources they need to succeed. Communities will be required to submit regular reports on how the funds were used and the impact on their creators and small businesses.
Recommendations: Community leaders are encouraged to establish a treasury of their own and set up storefronts and social media channels to promote their creators and small businesses. They are also encouraged to develop reputation systems or explore easy ways to empower their creators and small businesses.
Timeline:
Community leaders can apply to join the Ape Assembly by submitting a proposal on the ApeCoin forums at any time.
The ApeCoin central treasury will allocate funding to approved communities on a monthly basis.
Communities must submit regular reports on the use of funds and the impact on their creators and small businesses.
Overall Cost:
Each participating community will be eligible for up to 15,000 ApeCoin per month. The total cost will depend on the number of communities approved and participating in the Ape Assembly. The exact distribution of funds will be determined by the ApeCoin DAO token holders’ voting process.
If approved by DAO members, this informational proposal will signal to community leaders that the Ape Assembly is their preferred path forward for growth and empowerment within the ApeCoin ecosystem.
This can be very confusing for our community, and I would like you to consider changing the name of this tentative sub-group you are presenting in this AIP. Thank you.
Hello. This is an alternative model to the Ape Assembly that has been built into the larger package that you linked. As it has become increasingly difficult to request changes to the other package, which includes steward elections, creation of a DAO handbook, & a governance working group, this serves as a stand-alone version.
The formation of any governing body merits big discussion, which I feel wasn’t accurately reflected in the discussions accompanying that thread. In that version, there are ramifications for token holders, including potential unannounced changes to the voting system, a ongoing series of internal elections, and the introduction of bureaucratic systems that may not accurately reflect the token holders wants.
This proposal draft, as written, may not be compatible w/ the suggested Governance Working group or steward model. It does however complement simple stand-alone proposals such as the Community Discourse Moderation proposal. I’m simply exerting my rights as a token holder, because the process has not been changed yet, to utilize the existing governance system to present a conservative alternative that can be used w/ the current AIP system.
Thank you for your context. As the moderator who approved your post I am aware of your rights to present ideas in whatever format you wish so long as it is not illegal, I merely asked you to change the name because they are as unrelated to each other as can possibly be.
Speaking now as the community member who spent the last 5-6 months writing and gathering consensus in the community on the Working Group Guidelines and subsequent Ape Assembly within, I have been looking for your requested changes and can’t seem to find any… Would you mind sharing your feedback directly in the comments or on the google doc or in Discord? You can also reach me in DMs, or the comments section in this post is appropriate too. I am also confused what you mean when you say “unannounced changes to the voting system?” This is not present anywhere in the AIP.
Again speaking as the lead author of the Working Group Guidelines AIP, respectfully I disagree wholeheartedly that this is “an alternative" in any such form. The substance of our ideas are wholly unrelated in every aspect except name.
While the Ape Assembly represented in the Governance Working Group Charter is a indeed an assembly of governance participants, what you’ve presented here is 15k $APE or ~$60,000 per community, per month donations.
I’m sorry, I fail to see how “give away $APE” is in any way related to an assembly of governance participants who attempt to address some of the biggest problems in our DAO, but I appreciate you bringing your ideas forward.
I would also like to reassure you that your right as a token holder to present ideas to this DAO will never be impeded or censored in any way so long as they are not illegal. I would also once more reiterate (for you I think the 7th or 8th time) there are no changes to AIP-1 or “the existing governance system” in the Working Group proposal, thank you.
Thank you for your initial input on this. As a fellow member of the long-standing Apecomms initiative, and runner up in the January Steward election, I recognize your contributions and work to date. Furthermore, I am content with the performance of the elected stewards during mandated RFP process. The 4-6 weeks of mission statement events following are where I became increasingly concerned with the direction. I have continually expressed this in various ways, with varying approaches and degrees of effectiveness.
This proposal, along with a few other smart simple proposals, can present a viable alternative, that by utilizing the current process, can provide simple templates for community leaders to self-govern. It is born from the idea that centralized groups are outdated constructs, and instead offers recommendations for NFT & web3 communities to better incorporate $APE into their economy. I don’t believe mission statements, steward elections for 8 individuals, or even a handbook is necessary by pursuing this alternate path. It also puts no governors in place, which I feel is incredible important. I am willing to grow & evolve the idea based on feedback presented on this thread.
Thank you again, I have only one more thing to add which is that there is no Mission Statement presented in the Governance Working Group Guidelines.
We have done everything possible to address all feedback and potential points of contention, namely changes to AIP-1 and a Mission Statement.
I invite you to please read the proposal again as it has changed since the last time you read it. The very first comment on the proposal houses a change log where you can see when these items were removed from the AIP.
Yes I am currently reviewing the changes made 20 hours & 19 hours ago. Around 24 hours ago, I (with the help of a xp’d ai prompt engineer) was able to input all of other proposal into the powerful chatGPT4 AI engine.
These are the results of an analysis for the large WG Governance charter, of which some may have been addressed. I wrote this proposal as an alternative based on concerns both pre-existing & detailed below.
Summary:
In this conversation, you presented a detailed Governance Working Group Charter for the ApeCoin DAO. The Charter includes information on the mandate and scope, objectives, initiatives, reporting requirements, stewards, and budget for the group responsible for governance oversight and support within the DAO. You also asked for a summary, feedback, potential harm or exploits, and suggestions for improvement.
Feedback:
The Charter appears comprehensive and well-structured, covering essential aspects of governance within the ApeCoin DAO. It provides a clear framework for the roles, responsibilities, and operations of the Governance Working Group.
Potential harm or exploits:
The eligibility criteria for the Ape Assembly could be manipulated by individuals who hold multiple wallets or create new accounts to achieve Trust Level Status 2 or meet other requirements.
Centralization of power in the Ape Assembly might lead to a lack of diversity in decision-making or risk of collusion among members.
The compensation for the DAO Secretary could be seen as excessive, leading to conflicts of interest or concerns about misallocation of resources.
Suggestions for improvement:
Strengthen the proof of personhood requirements to prevent manipulation of eligibility criteria.
Encourage diversity within the Ape Assembly by promoting representation from various stakeholder groups and implementing term limits.
Review and benchmark the DAO Secretary’s compensation against similar roles in other DAOs to ensure fairness and transparency.
Some of these concerns have been addressed in the latest updates, 19 hours ago, but not all of them perhaps, so I will continue to evaluate. The rollout of treasury & metaverse working groups is not something I view as desirable. It is important to note that I have received private feedback through various contacts & networks throughout the WG suggestion process. While I may not have signers on this proposal, there are fair concerns regarding governance & expansion that I have received.
I think it’s great that your proposal looks for ways to support ApeCoin communities and provide them with the resources they need to grow and thrive. But, I must say, I was quite surprised to see you put up a proposal in which you used the Ape Assembly name we came up with as a part of Working Group Guidelines and The Governance Working Group Charter. I agree with @Amplify that this could cause confusion among our community and do hope you will reconsider using the name.
Other than you using our name, I don’t see how this would be in conflict with our WG Guidelines and Governance Charter. There is nothing in it that would stop someone from putting forth an AIP to distribute ApeCoin to communities. Our proposal aims to establish a comprehensive governance structure that ensures the long-term sustainability and growth of the ApeCoin ecosystem, while your proposal focuses mainly on providing funding and resources to ApeCoin communities without addressing the governance aspect.
Since there is nothing in your proposal that operationalizes the DAO, but you envision it as an alternative, how would you suggest the community does the tasks necessary to keep the DAO running smoothly? Who would be running the Special Council Elections? Who would be overseeing the Discourse Facilitators? These are tasks that the community is taking over from the Administrator. And if there are no working groups, who would be handling communication? That is not a function of the Administrator nor the Special Council. And what about the WG0 discord? Would you suggest it’s shut down?
I really don’t see these proposals as doing the same thing, at all. They could even be complimentary. And once again, I’d like to ask you to change the name, so your proposal can be evaluated on it’s merits and not as an Alternative Plan.
Your topic will be moving to the AIP Draft phase in less than 24 hours. A direct message has been sent to allow you to indicate if you are content with the feedback received, or if you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days.
If we do not hear from you within 48 hours after your topic closes, your topic will be moved straight to the AIP Draft process.
Thank you @0xSword for your ideas [and the ApeCoin DAO community for the thoughtful discussions]. A moderator will get in touch with the author to draft the AIP in the appropriate template. Once the AIP is drafted and meets all the DAO-approved guidelines, the proposal will be posted on Snapshot for live official voting at: Snapshot
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments. [insert author username] please see your messages for the next steps.
Hello, I would like to withdraw all my backlogged proposals, which instead can be addressed more comprehensively with other improvements by the new Governance Working Group.
