I think you mean this thread - 2/3 "Supermajority" Requirement to Alter Fundamental Tenets of ApeCoin DAO
Last night I changed the title and added the AIP template format to the OP to prepare it for Draft stage. The original OP and discussion remains in that thread, some of which pertains to various pass thresholds for different reasons.
I intend it to be “a” proposal rather than “my” proposal, so will continue to incorporate feedback prior to the final AIP stage.
I’m not entirely comfortable treating people or ideas differently based on ask amounts. I’m also not opposed to it, and I certainly understand the intent; I just don’t think that’s the root of the problem or the full solution.
IMO the root of the problem is uninformed voting. This has perhaps increased as an unintended consequence of the Abstain option. Ideas to reward DAO participation and reward voting just for the sake of it will only increase uninformed voting, in addition to crossing ethical and probably legal boundaries.
I do not see how leaving AIPs open still longer would help - people have far more than enough time to evaluate all the ideas I’ve seen.
Those with relevant domain expertise wouldn’t need more than 5-15 minutes. Those without the relevant expertise probably made up their minds before even reading the full AIP. It’s human nature.
There’ll be over 500 votes on an AIP yet only 8 clicks on relevant links in the OP. We balk at a given figure like $2 million for an AIP yet do not demand any neutral qualified oversight or auditing of proposals for multiple WGs or the Foundation itself, which are far greater in scope, cost, impact, and “danger” as you put it. Hmmmm.
An equal concern to overall initial costs for an AIP, is costs that add up and up by coming back for additional funding before even launching the original promise or vision. So too open-ended ideas that have small nominal amounts of funding but roll over forever without end, which adds up.
That brings us to milestones, and partner funding.
What I’ve seen work IRL - as an employer, by launching or funding many start-ups, and as a judge of a major arts grants foundation - is milestones: fund one step at a time, fully knowing up front the idea is to add funding at subsequent stages (or pull the plug), and/or have those asking bring in partner funding. If it works IRL across such a variety of endeavors as I’ve experienced, it’ll work here.
Partner funding has in particular been missing in AIPs. Sometimes we see claims of great interest from VCs and such, but IRL if people with cash in hand are truly excited about a project they seek to lock up their share as soon as possible and as early in the development of the idea as possible. They do not sit on their wallets while the weeks and months tick by and others - including ApeCoin, or competitors in the idea’s sector - have a chance to step ahead in line.
Circling back to the idea of informed voting, we could consider a mandate that above a certain amount an AIP must have a brief opinion issued by a qualified neutral 3rd party. That opinion could be paid for by ApeCoin and it should then be added to the AIP. This would be similar to the Stewards’ opinion attached to the vote for new Administrators.
Having all info in one place - here, in the AIP - would also help a great deal, rather than having it spread across various and unofficial platforms and formats.