How has this thinking worked out historically, as staking has led to massive losses in actual fiat value over time? (E.g. if you staked over the past year, even after the APY staking has given you, you’d be down incredibly bad.)
It’s in the best interest of NFT holders who also hold $APE to end the staking. (Also of interest as the NFTs have also plummeted in value consistently after the short term mania after $APE was introduced.)
If staking ends how much APE are you going to buy? or you expect the market to buy vs sell. Trying to understand what change in effective demand you think it might have?
Sandbox DAO required this in the beginning.
In order to start voting, you must delegate to someone or yourself. The advantage to this is, then you can see all voting power wallets. Currently, on delegate apecoin DAO website, you can only see how much delegated and not how much is in wallet or staked for delegates.
None. I don’t buy assets that I believe will continue to depreciate.
“Staking” $APE has zero functional purpose. It is effectively a pre-paid Ponzi. It isn’t helping anyone. It isn’t doing anything. One could argue it slightly artificially inflates price via a soft lockup mechanism, but clearly that isn’t working. The price chart tells you the story there. If you want to push against that, feel free to share the data.
If staking ends my assumption is that the price may take a short-term hit, but the relief of continued sell pressure will have a long-term positive impact. Then over time REAL mechanisms for sustainable value can be implemented
The DAO is now in a financial crisis. Look at the most recent treasury disclosures. We need people to be pragmatic and objective about what’s happening.
I believe that ApeChain and the ApeCoin DAO continue to be far too Yuga-centric. I think the staking system contributes to that belief. People avoid the DAO because they believe it’s only for apes. I think people will avoid ApeChain for the same reason.
Counter that with Abstract by Pudgy. They didn’t call it PudgyChain because they had the foresight to realize that this would make people who were not penguins feel excluded. So they used a name that wouldn’t cause that.
And if we look at the NFT prices from the absolute peak of BAYC…
BAYC - April 29th, 2022 (near peak): 146 ETH
Pudgy Penguins - April 4h, 2022 (peak bubble) - 3.15 ETH
Prices today:
BAYC - 11.85 (less then 10% of former value)
Pudgy - 10.5 ETH (~3x improvement)
What’s the difference? Pudgy had a change of leadership and that new leader understood the importance of SCALE. While BAYC has always focused heavily on apes, ultimately apes are a small highly niche community. And that can be an absolutely fantastic business model, but it hits a high point and will eventually no longer be able to grow. Yuga tried to generate scale via Otherside, but that has, thus far, been a business tragedy of errors. Leadership changes, several rounds of layoffs including one just a few days ago. When they chose scale and failed, prices plummeted. They extracted too much value and couldn’t deliver against it. Greed can be quite the destructive force.
But importantly, $APE still has a connotation of only being for apes, and the DAO carries the same stigma. Even apes who DO stake and DO have $APE don’t participate in large numbers. They look at the DAO as a thing that’s driving their bags to 0. To some extent it is.
So while you talk down to me with “how much ape are you going to buy,” I say at least I’m doing something, at least I’m standing for something.
Meanwhile Pudgy has found mass market success after their leadership change that Yuga can only dream of. Pudgy toys being stocked in Walmart and Target, the two most difficult and most critical retail chains in the US. I cannot even begin to state how impressive this accomplishment is. Anyone who speaks down on a retail location like Walmart clearly has no idea that floor space is the literal grail of retail. Their chain is focusing on the exact same thing. Mass scale. Mass adoption. Check their social channels. Their GIFs have BILLIONS of views. That’s the power of compelling IP when done right.
That’s your competition.
So we can continue to be ape-centric, Yuga-centric, or we can be pragmatic and choose to stop doing the things that have thus far driven all values down, and try something different. Try something radical.
You make some valid points.
With regard to this. I also wrote in more general terms, I am adding for clarity purpose:
Effective Demand is what counts.
The point isn’t to end staking in order to make the number go up. It won’t do that.
The point is to end staking to slow down the decent to 0, which is currently happening, in order to allow the DAO to extend its runway to buy time for actions to occur which will create real, sustainable demand.
The DAO is truly in a crisis, I do not believe that’s an overblown statement. We do not have much time left, so any way to slow the proverbial bleed is a net-positive in my book. Better yet if we can get Yuga’s founders, investors, and Yuga itself to agree to burn their continued vests. Of course this will never happen, but if they truly care about the survival of $APE, that’s the move. Honestly if I was a founder I would like to think I’d do that. They’ve made tens of millions at a minimum already.
Pretty to the choir there. Most of us get that it’s a club; which is all well and good, but the fact is that the club is neither large enough nor diverse enough for long-term sustainability. But the club doesn’t want to hear this; at least not those who are paying attention or who actually care. And that’s how a 1B treasury went to zero in a little over two years.
It’s this same challenge that we are currently having over my MMO platform vs Otherside and which I described over here yesterday.
Thing is, very few in the club are going to care. They’re not going to listen. Then, +1 year from now, just like the financial crisis that the DAO is currently in, we will be having this same discussion about what went wrong with ApeChain. And there will be zero accountability. Nevertheless, I still hold out hope for ApeChain because I have to believe that behind-the-scenes, all involved are aware of the stakes.
Yup. There was a whole discussion about this before. In fact, in our ACE platform pitch to them, they were very adamant that Abstract was an all-inclusive “consumer chain”. And they have thus far stuck with that message - even within their dev channels (to which we were given access since the chain launched), docs, marketing materials, social media etc.
Yes. And that’s why they don’t care about it and would rather see it go away. Since I wrote this tweet yesterday about the DAO financials, the number of DM chatter that I’ve had surprised me more than anything else because the general consensus was “Sad, but is probably a good thing for the DAO to no longer exist”
It’s just crazy to me how the DAO releases disastrous financial data - that’s two whole quarters behind, which means they’re probably even worse today - and very few seem to care.
That sort of behavior comes with rapid change. As a DAO we don’t have the luxury of change, let alone anything that resembles a rapid one. And when I read election statements I just shake my head and wonder how on Earth any of those people believe that 1 out of 5 can make any difference - to anything. I mean, aside from a few of our notable leadership past and present, very few even engage in the DAO community. But they do post the usual WAGMI nonsense once in a while and rejoice in the 10 likes on X.
I saw this coming, and like the financials, it was part of the impetus for creating this discussion We should kill APE staking. lol ahead of my making it into a proposal.
I agree with this. But the fact remains there was no guarantee of performance nor any warranties made . And so, this can be changed at any moment in time - and without notice. And it was a proposal that made it happen, and a proposal can just as well reverse it. But you already knew that.
They have no incentive to do that.
I went digging and found the proposal that voted to keep the token on eth AIP-41: Keep ApeCoin within the Ethereum ecosystem - Process. So, that’s what we would be replacing if this proposal were to go to vote.
I think it is important that people in elected roles should engage in the forum. I have seen how in ENS Stewards and Delegates are very active in the forum.
I also really like how the snapshot voting is integrated into their Forum. They also have tags for delegates, which is also useful.
For example:
I also like how they tag the delegates like this. One of the concerns often brought up is “How to reach delegates”.
Arbitrum takes a more open approach with their forum. They also have a massive delegate Incentive program. We are doing what we can given our budget limits.
Also, for elected roles I think compensation must have a large % in APE vesting over 12 months versus all pegged to USD. Stewards need to be aligned with holders.
For Contractors, they can take more in USD pegged or all in USD pegged, as these are not elected roles.
Saying what I think, some will like it, some won’t.
Have a great weekend ApeCoin Fam.
There is no need to move staking. Apechain has automatic native yield that comes from staking contract on eth. So you can just hold ape on apechain and it will be the same as if you stake it on eth.
[Editing out as this ended up being incorrect]
that is only for apeUSD.
ETH yield comes from Lido.
APE yield comes from the staking contract (self-staking pool).
Is this confirmed somewhere?
Interesting for a wide variety of reasons. I stand corrected, thank you!
Yup. But I think @yatsiu is focused on the things like fragmentation, TVL etc.
Those docs are recent and this wasn’t previously known.
What would the cost be to pull something like this off?
