Hi Sword,
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.