No more dumb sh__t.

[SmartAPE]

I am going to assume that this was directed at myself and @capetaintrippy since we’re the authors of AIP-466.

But before I even get into this, I invite you to carefully read how the GwG ended up being added to AIP-466 when in fact the original proposal was specifically targeted at the three new working groups. Start here:

AIP-466: Proposal To Close Non-Essential Working Groups

In the spirit of transparency: Note that though the graphic in the proposal shows the facilitators under the GwG hierarchy, unlike the secretary, they are apparently neither under the GwG nor beholden to it. And so, being separate entities, they are unaffected by this proposal to close the GwG. I didn’t know this until early this morning. Imagine my surprise. And I am all but certain that some of you here in the DAO didn’t know this either. OVERSIGHT CHAIR ROLE I mention the above issue with …

@AllCityBAYC

Sorry, I’m not following. If you’re looking to shut down the WG structure as a whole, that’s fine, but trying to scapegoat us as some under-delivering group — when we not only hit every OKR but obliterate them and all associated expectations — is no bueno.

There was neither an inference of the GwG being used as a “scapegoat” nor was it implied anywhere in the proposal (I invite you to check the proposal edits) nor in the comments. As such, this rhetoric is needlessly inflammatory and without merit. Stop that.

As to the OKR and such, that’s largely irrelevant and inconsequential to the reasons surrounding the proposed closing of the WG. Yes - it’s never easy to lose a job, see your dept get defunded, a grant not renewed etc. Especially if it’s a highly paid $7K per month gig. But everything needs to regarded in context and within scope of the activity being suggested.

The issue here is that the DAO is entering a new era and [drastic] changes are needed.

I have to point out that, you took the time to write this entire missive, and not once - not even once - did ANY of you stewards in ANY of the WGs - take a moment to opine on the critical issue surrounding the fact that THE DAO IS ALMOST OUT OF MONEY. To wit: Ape Foundation Transparency Report - 2024 - Q1

But here we are discussing the merits of closing a WG that’s costing the DAO over $1M per year, and that’s more important.

@AllCityBAYC

Now think about how many failed and/or unaccountable grants have been issued by the DAO, and you’re looking to shut down a premium top-5 example?

While nobody is discounting the role that the GwG has played in the DAO, the above isn’t relevant.

@AllCityBAYC

This approach also seeks to embarrass us and the voters who believe in what we do, which, to be clear, is the large majority of the voting ApeCoin DAO, as shown by both the election and financial plan voting results.

Oh really? Right. So how embarrassed would the GwG if the DAO can no longer afford to fund its budget? And where is it written that the DAO - that’s us btw - can’t defund a WG as it sees fit? Where does it say that these working groups were designed to be permanent?

@AllCityBAYC

It’s one thing to shut down Working Groups, another to shut down all Working Groups without giving the ApeCoin DAO community an opportunity to see what’s going on with them on an individual level, and a whole other to start targeting specific initiatives – particulalry fully approved, funded, operating and successful initiatives.

Now you want to bring the topics of transparency and accountability into scope?

To be clear, I have yet to see any comment here on Discourse that seeks to impugn the GwG stewards let alone discard their role and accomplishments in the DAO - and for which each steward has been handsomely paid for their service to the DAO.

@AllCityBAYC

Furthermore, with a claw back on already approved funds for an already approved initiative, why would anyone want to possibly try and go through the AIP process AGAIN to put it back up, after it has been stopped dead in it’s tracks, often involving professional service providers.

There is no claw back in AIP-466. Please outline where you see this in the proposal. In fact, it specifically accounts for ensuring that not only are all stewards paid, but also that there is an orderly shutdown of the GwG.

As per claw backs, even the grants program run by the GwG being defunded is not a claw back. The GWG On-Chain Small Grants Program can just terminate and stop giving out grants. In that case, we can simply state that the grant program terminates at some point - or when it runs out of funds. It’s not as if this was something that the DAO was supposed to be funding in perpetuity. It’s tied to the GwG budget request. Heck, even ThankApe came back for a second grant of a larger 4M when the first grant was depleted. If that request had failed at vote, that would likely have been the end of ThankApe. It happens. We move on. It’s not personal.

@AllCityBAYC

I’m also not sure how a price tag could be put on this considering there is absolutely no actual mandated salary for Stewards, particularly outside of the Governance Working Group. In fact, the only reference to Steward compensation was written back in March 2023, and as the image below shows, expired in August 2023, and only even ever applied to the GWG.

What are you talking about? The steward salaries are right there in your own GwG budget AIP-408: Q2/Q3 2024 Governance Working Group Budget

I want to end this by reiterating - again - that none of this is personal. The DAO created and funded this WG and elected the stewards in them. And so, only the DAO can reverse that decision - as it sees fit.

ps. I noticed that you didn’t mention the Ape-U initiative (which nobody seems to know what’s going on with that) which I believe you are also a part of via the GwG. Did I miss that?