Phase 2 Clarification

General
1

From @HeadofApe on X

New account, same ape. This is the 5th week since I started as CEO and I wanted to share what we’ve been up to, what we’ve heard, and what comes next. Read below for updates re: Special Council, AIPs, On-chain governance, Transparency Report, etc. …

We’ve heard the complaints about AIP “Favoritism”, “Backchanneling”, etc. That ends now. All AIPs, even existing ones, will go through the new process. No sacred cows/rubber stamps…

Once an AIP clears temp check and has a negotiated contract so it can go up for final vote, funds will be moved into smart contracts to self-execute. Otherwise the treasury will remain in existing wallets/exchanges for better security and monetization opportunities (yield, etc).

Does this mean that all of the AIPs that are in Admin Review will not be put up for vote as promised?

That’s not so bad but also now Phase 2 (0-14 day period) now looks to become the new Admin Review where AIPs will continue to go to die, now even where the AIP has passed a temp check.

So even where the community wants something to happen and voted it through a temp check, it will not happen unless the AIP author reaches an agreement with the Foundation without any oversight of the DAO at large.

Disappointing to see that nothing will change with on-chain voting.

Holding up an AIP beyond the 0-14 day window because the AIP author has not reached a commercial agreement with the Foundation would be a violation of the mandate of AIP-582.

Please explain to me why I am mistaken?

5 Likes
2

Hi @ernestlee ,

Appreciate the question here. AIP-582 includes Phase 2, during which the Foundation handles contract negotiations and only submits agreed-upon contracts for final vote. Always happy to chat further for follow-ups.

-@Facilitators

5 Likes
3

Thanks for the note. I had previously understood that even where an AIP author would not agree to the terms presented by the Foundation, that an AIP would nonetheless go to vote with a note indicating such.

  1. Does this mean that an AIP will not proceed any further if an AIP author and the Foundation cannot come to terms?
  2. What happens to an AIP after the mandated 0-14 day window closes with no agreement?
  3. Will the negotiations be done in public or will the negotiations be confidential?
  4. Can the Foundation require terms that are specifically not required by the text of the AIP? For example, if an AIP does not have any provision for returning funds to the DAO, can the Foundation require such in order to move the AIP to a vote?
  5. Will a Constitutional AIP be subject to negotiation with the Foundation before moving to a vote?
  6. Are there any other criteria that will hold up an AIP from moving forward to a vote?
5 Likes
4
  1. Will a Constitutional AIP be subject to negotiation with the Foundation before moving to a vote?

This “should” be based on the rules agreed and voted in the latest AIP on this topic.

5

Hi @ernestlee ,

  1. Correct, as outlined in AIP-582, a contract is required before going to final vote (except for the limited case in which a contract is wholly unnecessary to protect the interests of the DAO).
  2. The goal is to carry out the DAO’s intention, so negotiations would continue past the 14 day period.
  3. The negotiations will be confidential, although updates may be shared from time to time.
  4. Yes, as has been the case in all AIPs, the foundation has discretion to act in the best interest of the DAO.
  5. A constitutional AIP is unlikely to take the form of a contract negotiation, although there may be legal or other requirements that need to be discussed during this period.
  6. There may be other approvals that need to be need considered during the contract negotiations phase, which may be required depending on the nature of the AIP. Some AIPs may be need approvals related to legal, regulatory, insurance related, permitting, etc.

-@Facilitators

2 Likes
6

Thank you for your explanation. Sorry. Just a few more follow-up questions.

  1. AIP-582 does not dictate that a contract is “required”. Where are you getting that from the language of AIP-582?

Phase 2: KYC and contract negotiations (0-14 days): During this phase, if applicable, the Ape Foundation will be tasked with oversight and administration of the AIP, including, but not limited to, conducting KYC and contract negotiations. Coming to contractual terms at this phase will allow for votes approved in Phase 4 to be self-executing.

  1. It seems that you are saying that “contract negotiations” are always applicable. Yes? If not, then when are they not applicable?
  2. Where does the Foundation get the authority to hold an AIP that has been approved by a temp check beyond the 14 days mandated by AIP-582? It was our understanding that the mandate was the 14 days and not the “contract negotiations”.
  3. The DAO’s intention should be clearly defined in an AIP. The intent of AIP-582, for example, was to move voting on-chain and eliminate the Admin Review. See, Admin Review was originally supposed to be only under certain circumstances. Eventually, the message was that all AIPs were going to Admin Review where they would get no movement. This was supposed to be eliminated by AIP-582. We went over this language ad nauseum with @waabam and others prior to supporting AIP-582. We were told that an AIP would be put to vote regardless of any contract negotiations.

For your reference, the framework that existed for AIPs prior to AIP-582 said that,

For Pending AIPs that have been tagged with “Needs Administrative Review,” the Board, serving in an administrative capacity, will determine whether clarification or action is required before moving a Pending AIP to Phase 7. If clarification or action is not needed, the Pending AIP is tagged as “Approved for Voting” and proceeds to Phase 7. If the Board decides to return a Pending AIP for further clarification or action, they must provide a clear explanation of why and tag it as either “Return for Clarification” or “Return for Reconstruction.”

Reasons to tag as “Return for Clarification” may include but are not limited to:

** Cost to implement unclear/not able to be calculated*
** Would use more than 5% of the DAO treasury*
** Conflicts with another proposal*

Reasons to tag as “Return for Reconstruction” may include but are not limited to:

** Proposal is at odds with the mission/values of the DAO*
** Proposal is at odds with the well-being of the DAO*
** Violations of law, or against advice of counsel for APE Foundation*
** Reasonable suspicion of fraud or other misleading information*

The “…but not limited to…” language led to every AIP being sent to Admin Review and now, it seems you are saying that every AIP will be stuck in Admin Review even where we have voted for AIP-582 which requires by its clear language that an AIP will be moved out of Phase 2 after “0-14 days”.

I am proposing an AIP to codify your understanding of Phase 2 which is contrary to the above cited language of AIP-582.

4 Likes
7

I propose adding the following language to Phase 2 as described in AIP-582.

“An AIP must not be submitted for a final vote if the AIP author does not reach a contractual agreement with the APE Foundation.”

8

Please note Constitutional AIPs probably don’t need a contract with the Foundation. E.g. I suggest a constitutional change, which needs to pass the thresholds for a Constitutional AIP, why do I need to sign a contract with the Foundation? Especially, if the person submitting has no financial benefit for doing so?

1 Like