REDRESSING THE BALANCE - APE FOUNDATION will delegate 6.3million $APE to a community VOTING wallet

The AIP is pretty complete but I just wanted to get some feedback to improve it before I submit.

THE ISSUE

Currently there is a massive divide at the DAO. Many community members feel their voice isn’t heard, their apecoin doesn’t count during voting and their time here is not appreciated. A lot of this unrest imo can be attributed to the many seeing that the few control the DAO. How can the communities collective voice be less than that of the MOCAVERSE voting power and recent voter HORIZENLABS? How can the results reflect the will of the apecoin community? How can a solution be found without diluting and disincentivising WHALES?

SOLUTION

Having looked at every voting option I can over the last year, considering hybrids of voting power + reputation + participation models etc etc, I have come to the conclusion that none would really be suitable for the DAO. Many options would penalise WHALES, other options would just strengthen WHALE votes even further and some options are easily manipulated/gamed.

Then around three weeks ago I saw a tweet from KODOMA.ETH. And although I may not agree with every word the overall thread was compelling - how do we fix the issue of outside entities controlling our VOTES - it then struck me - the answer isn’t to dilute their votes, the answer is to provide a COUNTER and restore the BALANCE.

MOCAVERSE did this themselves recently when MACHIBIGBROTHER increased his voting power - yet they have not subsequently reduced the amount.

SO:

APECOIN FOUNDATION will delegate 6.3million APECOIN to a COMMUNITY WALLET to redress the balance and return the power to the people

QUALIFYING CRITERIA & IMPLEMENTATION

This will be a ZERO cost AIP. I will set out the tasks to be completed by FACILITATORS, GWG STEWARDS, THE SECRETARY & MYSELF overseeing.

The criteria for joining is set very low; is based on historical data (snapshot) taken 1st March 2024 and once compiled will not be added to. (One way I think - Trust level 2 as is extremely inclusive.)

This can be seen as not only restoring a VOICE & POWER back to the community (where it should have always been) but also as a REWARD for everyone that has brought us this far.

Please comment below anything you’d like me to add in, raise any concerns, ask any questions or simply just rant! Thanks

34 Likes

This was the TWEET - it gives a lot of food for thought. And as mentioned I don’t agree with everything, but I do believe the point in general is valid.

Yat said himself the MOCAVERSE vote has issues (handful of wallets controlling the outcome).

10 Likes

The solutuons and criterias for qualifications for participation are on point and i love you for that
Thank you so much for making everything transparent

11 Likes

Gm Furious, the voting process has certainly been a point of discussion since the beginning.

With respect to the “community wallet” and the 6.3 million, a few questions arise for me:

  • Why the 6.3 million figure? Is this purely to counterbalance the present delegated Moca vote? You also alluded to other large players earlier here.
  • If so, would this amount be perpetually rebalanced if/when Moca adjusts their holdings?
  • Who would have access to this “community wallet?” How would votes be allocated? And further, many members of Moca who delegate their votes are also members of the $APE community… if they also have access to the community wallet wouldn’t that in essence defeat the purpose of what you’re setting up here?

Just a few questions from me, off the top.

10 Likes

I don’t believe this is a 0 cost AIP as you are asking for 6.3M $APE to sit in a delegated community wallet.

9 Likes

It’s very encouraging that we are running an inclusive community where everyone makes am impact👍

6 Likes

Great proposal! Fully support the idea of restoring community balance through the 6.3 million APECOIN delegation. Appreciate the inclusivity of the criteria. Could you clarify the delegation process and roles?

7 Likes

Hi mate - perfect this is exactly what I wanted to see.

  1. The 6.3m figure was a rough average of the biggest three recent voters (moca6.3, horizenlabs6.7 & polygon6) really I would make it 6.33m. But certainly open to input here. Thing I kept getting hung up on is polygon vote and horizenlabs are new voters compared to mocaverse - will they continue to vote or just when it involves themselves in some respect? So maybe 6.3 would then be as balance to the moca vote really. It’s a bit of both - to add balance and give back some resemblance of a valid voice at voting to the most dedicated people at the DAO over the years. As a side note we wouldn’t exclude anyone from joining as long as they meet the criteria and I think Marc from polygon would qualify, so would Yat and other active moca people and so would Herve and horizen.

  2. I had thought about this and Evil mentioned it - what happens if Yat increase their wallet? I’d have to ask why would they do this, if they did it would be troubling imo, as the reason they increased last time (and still haven’t reverted back) was to counter MACHI vote. So Tl;dr is I see no reason for them to do this as we’d be equal. But if they did, thing is Yat knows we have more apecoin, I’m sure he’s not going to want a bags war, but yes in that instance I would apply for additional funding to match their vote. Remember, less than three wallets control the mocaverse vote, that could be as little as three people, but from what I know it’s anywhere from 3-20 people who are active (likely single digits imo). We on the other hand would have anywhere from 500-1000 people qualifying to be a part of the community wallet vote.

  3. The criteria would be as inclusive as possible for a seat at the table and have a 1 person = 1 vote in the community wallet. We’d use Trust level 2 (this means even those who have contributed the absolute minimum can have a voice), I’ll probably add in others such as have voted three times over three voting periods (as not everyone is on discourse), also maybe inject there that their wallet $ape balance must have been over 100ape (to cut out bots and alts from applying). Maybe also we would say another way would be 10 discord posts over 10 separate days (GM and drink water and thank ape farming posts would not count). Basically very simple stuff - we want as many people to feel as empowered as possible.

In regards to people who delegate their votes to moca for example. So let’s explain this so people understand what we are talking about. They have delegated their 12.5k asset to someone from the “discord list” provided in the mocaDAO channel, and potentially then just walked away, they hold no apecoin more than likely and they have not participated in the apecoin forum, discord and hold no ape as mentioned - so no they will certainly not qualify to join. Qualifying criteria will be set very low, if they haven’t contributed in the most tiniest way to our DAO then ofc they will not be admitted. This goes for all delegations, however, most people who have delegated their actual apecoin will qualify as they have a wallet balance of X amount (I will determine a valid figure here).

Hope that covers everything.

Implementation:

Wanted to just write a quick tl;dr - We will make an application form that apecoin will retweet a few times, leave it open for a week, we will then check the list and compile a complete one for community perusal and approval - everything will be done transparently with community oversight.

It will probably be a new discord channel, approved applicatants will be given a role, every two weeks the GWG or FACILITATORS will copy paste the snapshot summaries and links, and each member gets one vote.

We may start with simple emoji discord vote and then more onto a snapshot style with maybe some kind of soulbound nft.

Everything will be simple. At zero cost. And the end goal is if we have 300 people for example each person will then in essence have a voice equalling 21K $ape. They don’t have to do anything, they can just vote every two weeks. Majority vote wins and will be executed and posted to vote I think by the SECRETARY. We will set a minimum threshold, so less than 25% of members vote it’s invalid and we do not vote.

This will also drive people to the discord. We can have documented DURING VOTE discussions if people wish. There are many many benefits and best of all people will once again feel like their voice matters as they are a part of a 6.3m apecoin voting power. :muscle::muscle::muscle:

Last point - no one is excluded, facilitators, stewards, SC etc etc - if you qualify you are welcome to a vote. We want the most active and passionate members in here, this includes Machi, Yat, etc etc. Our goal is to give a valid voice at voting to the people of the DAO, not to create some exclusive club - in a way also will be a way to heal the divide we are seeing more of lately in the community.

Thanks as always. LFG

9 Likes

Hi,

Thanks.

So when you delegate voting power the apecoin doesn’t go with it.

If I delegate my voting power to your wallet my apecoin stays in my wallet, you will never have access to my apecoin and cannot in anyway touch my apecoin. But, you would have the voting power. However, at anytime I can revoke this power, even after you have voted with it. And this really is the beauty of this AIP - ZERO cost with maximum benefits.

So, the DAO owns at present hundreds of millions of dollars in apecoin - they will do nothing more than delegate the voting power - ZERO COST.

Anything let me know. But Tl;dr - this will not cost one single apecoin; no apecoin will ever leave the DAOs treasury - so no apecoin will ever be at risk either. The apecoin will not leave any of the ape foundations wallets and only the voting power associated with 6.3m $ape will be delegated to a wallet (which can be revoked at anytime easily - 2/3 clicks).

Thanks.

6 Likes

Hi,

Thanks.

So the wallet will be nothing more than one I will have the SECRETARY or similar create. There are no security issues as the apecoin is not in that wallet (but I will have Feld and his peeps give us a run down on anything we should consider ofc).

We will ofc need a trusted person or persons to control the vote casting every two weeks. Most simple way to do this is delegate the responsibility to someone the community has already elected (or not objected to being appointed at least) and that we trust. This part of the process is very simple imo, any GWG steward or FACILITATOR could also do this duty, but I like the SECRETARY for this part of the task.

Other than that, once setup, the ongoing task would be minimal, post the votes every two weeks in the announcements channel, everyone with the role and in the channel can vote. All channels will be viewable by everyone, but only those with the role or nft etc can vote. Transparency all the way.

So I don’t see the need for any new staff or roles in the respect of delivering this, I personally will just help get things rolling if needed and oversee like any community member - once up and running I’ll just be a happy DAO member with a VOICE at voting. I will not need any special permissions or access whatsoever.

As for the members who join the role could be something like COMMUNITY WALLET, to grant access to the discord channel. And maybe we send soulbound NFTs to the wallets of the people eligible and we do voting by way of snapshot. So you’d have both a role and an nft. We don’t need to get too complicated in my mind - keep it simple really, but the AIP will include wording to give the stewards/facilitators/secretary scope to improve the process as they see fit in regards to how we vote, where we congregate etc etc in the future of new methods present themselves (delivery will be best of what’s available always and will change over time I’m sure).

If anyone can think of anything to add just drop it here and I’ll incorporate it. What I was looking for is major objections - why this is such a bad idea - but it’s early so I’m sure they will come. If they don’t then happy days. :joy::joy:

Thanks again - let’s get this done and give the community the power to have a real impact at voting.

5 Likes

@G_is_us @Moca_Bond_007 @yatsiu

As big mocaverse people do you see this idea as diluting your voting power or an attack or worrying?

Or perhaps you see it as something you welcome and have no issue with?

Would love to hear your thoughts.

Just to reiterate this is a proposal to give a REAL voice at voting to hundreds of active members of the apecoin DAO, (many mocaverse people will be eligible to join). Also, in some ways this proposal is just a carbon copy of what animoca has done for the mocaverse NFT holders - gifting 6.3m in voting power to their community - except our community of active people will be 10/20x bigger and more representative imo.

(NB - for someone to join in mocaverse vote now would cost roughly $12,500K for 1 vote against on average 1,400 votes - this is a massive problem. Add that also to the top three wallets that control the majority - and it gets hard to justify that kind of spend imo.)

Thanks.

9 Likes

I think it’s important to consider the broader implications of this proposal for the ApeCoin DAO as a whole. By expanding the voting power to a wider group of users and lower cost ranges we could potentially bring more diverse perspectives to the decision making process and make the DAO more representative of its community.

9 Likes

You could also consider setting a minimum threshold for the number of votes required for a proposal to pass in order to ensure that the votes that are cast are meaningful and impacful.

And I must say using both roles and NFT to grant access to voting channel would be a good way to ensure that only eligible members can join in the voting process. Thanks

6 Likes

Expanding the voting power and broadening access could certainly improve inclusivity within the ApeCoin DAO, promoting a more diverse and representative decision-making process. It’s important to assess how these adjustments may affect both the community dynamics and the DAO’s long-term objectives.

8 Likes

I really like the thoughtful approach you have taken to tackle the voting power imbalance issue in a fair manner. Delegating 6.3 million APE to a community wallet is a bold but necessary move to counterbalance the disproportionate influence of a few major players like MOCAVERSE and HORIZENLABS. This helps restore balance and ensure the collective voice of the wider community is properly represented in governance decisions.

4 Likes

Using an inclusive criteria like Trust Level 2 for the snapshot is a smart way to reward long-standing community members who have contributed to the DAO’s success so far. And leveraging past data avoids diluting current token holders.

I appreciate that you’ve thoroughly examined various voting models and hybrid approaches, yet arrived at this brilliant solution to provide a bridge in voting without penalizing whales. The zero cost implementation overseen by core contributors is also practical if you as me

5 Likes

Overall, this proposal gets at the heart of the decentralization ethos - empowering the community voice while still preserving incentives for major stakeholders. It’s a balanced approach that could really help heal divides in the DAO. Kudos on the innovative thinking! I’m excited to see how the community reacts as you gather more feedback.:+1:

8 Likes

I absolutely agree with you on this, a 100% cus the amount is incredible

2 Likes

The 6.3M figure aims to balance out Moca’s voting power, but also allow smaller holders to have more sway against potential future whales. The amount could adjust if big stake shifts happen. We’d need to figure out wallet access and voting transparently to avoid conflicts of interest with Moca/APE overlap. Just putting it out there as a concept to discuss empowering the wider community against concentrated voting weight.

4 Likes

Your proposal seems well-intentioned👍, but I have some concerns. Delegating a massive amount of voting power to a community wallet could lead to centralization and potential issues with governance capture. It might be better to explore solutions that empower individual community members rather than concentrating voting power. Additionally, setting strict criteria could exclude many contributors. I’d suggest considering more decentralized and inclusive approaches that align with the DAO’s principles of openness and fair representation.

5 Likes