It is fully enforced by a contract vesting schedule. Below is NOT the terms I suggested but the ones that ENS use. Please note ENS has a 24 month vesting, I suggested 18 months.
Just take my money dude. Iâm just sending it to you now. Youâll figure it out and make us both rich.
I wasnât talking about the vesting schedule. I was talking about this:
â30 days is too short to see if a Steward is committed and capable. 90 days gives time to see performance, address if concerns and in the worst case scenario have them removed from the DAO.â
Right now the ONLY process is by a DAO wide AIP vote. That vote would need over 50%, like most other AIPs. I see this as a Process not Constitutional AIP.
I am looking to suggest in an updated charter, in that we could add an additional process: If 69% of Stewards want be able to replace a Steward, they could do so WITHOUT going to a DAO wide vote. So now that is 8 of 11 or if 6 Stewards, then 5 of 6 Stewards. However, this suggestion would need to be included in an updated WG Charter.
I Agree, that is why there is a significant portion in USD fixed per month. Also after the cliff, they can sell the APE they get each month. A mix of risk, but with reasonable security is what I have suggested.
The numbers can be played with, in terms of increasing the USD vs the APE Governance Distribution amount etc.
This makes sense, though itâs hard to get behind numerous six-figure salaries for stewards of a DAO that exists to give away money, and has done nothing to replenish the treasury. I thought there were multiple AIPs to remove the working groups for lack of transparency and oversight. Itâs unlikely that a DAO-wide vote would pass to remove a steward if no one knows what theyâre doing.
I am always in favor of stating which DAOs you mean rather than saying âother leading DAOsâ. If you mean two DAOs, thatâs very different from twenty DAOs, and also has this positively impacted any quantatively measurable aspects?
I am getting feedback to reduce the APE Govenance Tokens component, ironically for two totally opposite reasons.
- Some community members think if the Token moons that is too much upside for Stewards.
- Some Stewards think that the downside risk is too great and their prefer it more closely pegged to USD.
One person mentioned both, saying that a big drop may lead to not motivated Stewards. I think finding the balance is important.
Given this feedback, I will reduce the APE component from over 50% to approximately 30%. I think the minimum amount to have significance is 20%, so I await further feedback on this.
I have three proposals to close MarComms, MwG and WebDev.
When did we get the concept of âlead stewardâ? How is that determined? Better yet, when was that decision made, and why wasnât I consulted?
Why not just change it from 9K USDT to 9K $APE and leave out all the other controversial and misaligned parts. And if youâre going to do that, might as well lump in the secretary and SC in there as well. I always wondered why all these DAO positions werenât paid in $APE. Number go up, all benefit. Number go down, all figure out how to stop dumb things that affect the token.
this is probably what youâre referring to below. Maybe thereâs been slight changes since
Yes - it is. But AFAIK, there was no WG vote to pick a lead. So I just assumed that like all these charters which are mostly nonsense machines with a lot of words that are treated as mere suggestions, that it was just something that was never actually done.
So, if they actually did it, who is the lead of each WG as per the charter?
I agree. This would incentivize either returning money to the treasury or making demonstrable efforts to improve the quality of the token or community.
They are pegged in USD but usually paid monthly in APE (there isnât a rule of WGs on this, as they need to hold some USD to cover liability risk. If they received the grant at a substantially lower price in APE, they can manage the risk without converting as much to USD, though with a very volatile token they need to monitor this carefully).
Also after receiving APE, Stewards may hold all or part in APE, others sell APE for USD, ETH or something else for various reasons. My point even if paid purely in APE, it doesnât stop someone selling immediately after they get the APE transferred. In fact when the token price is trending down this is more likely to happen.
A combination model of USD (USDT/USDC) with APE (on a long tail vesting), I still think is the best model. We want our community leaders to be active in the overall Governance process.
Personally, I canât imagine having a paid position where some of my compensation is locked. Paid workers (whatever legal title you want to give them) are not VCâs. Your model is closer to early Silicon Valley, where employees got limited cash salaries but vested stock options. However, those were clear securities.
You mentioned that workers can sell all their APE. In traditional companies, executives are required to report their sales of stock. If thereâs no reporting requirement in ApeCoin DAO, then workers could sell all their APE and no one would know (other than knowing itâs no longer in a specific wallet).
The only true incentive is to pay workers directly a specific amount of APE, untethered to another assetâs value. Then their compensation is directly tied to the success of the token. However, the chance of well-paid people who have no oversight agreeing to this is probably zero.
lol! Ya think? Itâs why each time proposals like this show up, and given the total lack of accountability and transparency in the leadership, I just point and lol.
Simple and efficient, lfg!
Hi @bigbull,
The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in less than 24 hours.
-
If youâre content with the feedback received, your next steps are to finalize your proposal using the AIP Draft Template.
-
A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft. Upon receipt of the final Draft, we will review and provide instructions on the next steps.
-
Are you ready to proceed to the next phase or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?
We look forward to hearing from you.
Which Steward Compensation Structure do you prefer?
- Option A
- Option B
Full Details in the first post on this thread.
The poll needs a âNone of the aboveâ option.
lol. This is just like one of those surveys: How much do you like the former president (1) very much, or (2) very very much. Should the DAO pay workers with no oversight (1) a lot or (2) more than #1.