The early community received 150 million $APE even 1/3 participation of this would completely alter the current DAO setup
2 Likes
Hi and thanks.
So the reason I mentioned 3/4 wallets is because if you take the total of “votes” for example (not to be confused with voters), the top wallets can sway any vote. There’s on average 2,000 votes lately at mocaverse and the top 3/4 wallets control between 980-1100 approx. So over 50% of the ‘power’ lies there.
I really have issue with this. You are looking at it from monetary terms again. The people who will be empowered here are people who have contributed to the stake - over the years, with time and money - albeit the money is not as great as what entities like animoca, horizenlabs and polygon have in their vaults.
Did animoca and horizenlabs pay for their apecoin? Or was it gifted to them for the time and effort they put in at one stage?
Without having any united and substantial voice in the first place the DAO is slipping into these kinds of realms - buy a YES VOTE. Whether we should consider increasing one day is non-applicable rn I feel. But I will answer and I think yes, the communities voice should be comparable to others always.
I did briefly mention this in another reply. Why not 18m to counter the three combined. I decided we should take an average of what we have now and go at it in a comparable way. A similar seat at the table. An equal share if you will of today and now.
But this is exactly mocaverse. No acquired apecoin. Simply gifted to them. No incentive to buy apecoin, to engage in our discord or forum - a closed and unique environment with almost zero cross over.
I live mocaverse and what they are doing. They have always made me feel welcome. My hope is that come voting (if this were to pass) more times than not we’d be on the same page and vote the same way. But, we will be doing so with a much more diverse and representative collection of “community” voices.
Many thanks for your input. Much appreciated.
1 Like
While this is no doubt true, there’s also a harsh reality in crypto that very few actually care about building anything of sustainable value. If you just look at this Discourse, there’s truly only a handful of people who take the time to contribute anything. Many of them have near zero incentive to do so. For example, I currently hold 1 $APE, although my primary interest in the DAO at this point is simply watching and learning from how this experiment goes.
Meanwhile we have people who have 6 figure AIPs pass and then are never seen here again. That’s a real issue from my POV.
I agree that when people buy their $APE to vote, that vote should count. But I also think that many will agree that the current system just isn’t working. Extremely low participation. Votes are beyond top heavy. Little to no meaningful forward progress. The more ideas we have to challenge the system the better. As mentioned in an above comment, I don’t think there will be one “perfect” solution, but hopefully we can learn from all proposed solutions to at least make steps forward.
Quick Edit: Also Yat, thank you for taking the time to participate. I’m sure you’re legitimately busy and yet you’re one of the very few operating at your level to read and discuss. That’s awesome.
9 Likes
The problem with this one for me is they want to reward new people. Which is fine ofc. I want to empower those who have helped get us where we are today.
You also have the issue of competing DAOs with what NFD (now GwG idea is) - why would anyone buy and delegate apecoin for free basically when uniswap will be paying you to do this?
Their idea seeks to bring in new apecoin or awaken dormant apecoin, and imo will take years and possibly never succeed beyond a few hundred thousand bc of the likes of the uniswap DAO incentive (which will be adopted by other comparable DAOs imo). My idea seeks to address the issue today, and to reward those who have been here with a bigger say at voting - a seat at the big table!
3 Likes
Totally agree. Think many different approaches is the way to go.
I just think with the maybe bull run incoming people’s attentions undoubtedly will be else where - imo we are already operating like a ghost town - so how do we inject some renewed confidence and spirit into the DAO and keep these previously committed people going?
My answer has to be to let them know their devotion is acknowledged & appreciated, their voice matters & always will, by rewarding them with a bigger voice at voting and in-turn making the vote a lot more diverse and representative of the community.
Personally I don’t want free apecoin from TA - I just want to help shape a sustainable and successful DAO.
If I’m being totally honest I think many are more than happy with the status quo here. The few controlling the many.
4 Likes
This is a great tweet from former special council member NftGerry
What it highlights is another issue with the NFD/new GwG idea “to attract new blood”, and why my approach is so much better suited to the now - people I propose to reward with additional voting power have knowledge, exposure, and time & money committed already.
1 Like
I will say that I do really like the idea of rewarding people with voting power, but without giving them actual $APE so it’s not about financial incentive (as your comment says.) That way very active members could have a voice, but the “reward” isn’t about the cash value given, but instead about the increase in the power of their vote.
I’m sure we could figure out a set of metrics (with the activity tiers on the DAO making the most sense as a start to me) that we could then reward individuals with a certain amount of delegated voting power. I think I’d support that for sure. We’d just need to carefully balance these rewards, and ensure that the activity is sustained and not simply gamed for short-term vote impact. I think where crypto “breaks” is when the reward is all about the money, so all sorts of people farm it never to return once they’re rewarded. Hard to build sustainability with that model.
9 Likes
You totally get it. Ofc there should be some stipulations that take into account low uptake and if that occurs it would be dissolved.
I really don’t want to make anyone feel as if they missed out, so possibly we’d add in a review in a year to let new people in under a different set of criteria using AND not OR so it couldn’t be gamed.
I understand some of the reservations like - but X put in 200K and now you’re gifting so and so a free vote - but my reply would be if you voted a few times or hold X of apecoin in a wallet for whatever period we decide (plus all the other low bar avenues they’ll be to be included) you’ll be eligible to join.
How can having more people’s voices represented with greater power at voting be a bad thing? Especially when those people are all active DAO members from the last 2 years.
Thanks Matt. I’m gonna leave this discussion open for a while, compile all the points and include them if possible, then I’ll share draft with people like yourself and get feedback and then post. Anybody who adds even a line or one minute’s time is welcome to be added as an author - I’m not even concerned if my name doesn’t appear lol (actually that might make it more likely to pass 
)
Much appreciated. Thanks Matt.
5 Likes
It’s true that there are lack of active participation in the DAO and it can be difficult to get people to invest their time and energy into community building. Alsohe incentive structure of the DAO needs to be carefully considered so it’s important to find ways to encourage more people to participate.
7 Likes
You make a really good point but rewarding existing users who have been active and loyal to the DAO is just as important as attracting new users.
So what if new users could be rewarded with incentives for joining and participating in the DAO, while existing users could be rewarded with increased voting power based on their past contributions then this way the DAO would benefit from both new and existing users and could create a more balanced and sustainable incentive structure.
7 Likes
I share your viewpoint on incentivizing active participation with voting power instead of purely monetary rewards. This approach resonates with our commitment to fostering community engagement within ApeCoinDAO. Beginning with activity tiers as a foundation, establishing measurable metrics to distribute delegated voting power seems like a promising strategy. Striking a balance in these rewards to encourage sustained involvement while guarding against short-term manipulation is essential for cultivating lasting community resilience. Emphasizing the intrinsic value of participation over financial gains is key to building a dedicated and sustainable community.
9 Likes
Yes, the accepted Author was busy on other things. That said, I reached out to @NFD and also @0xSword who both posted about delegations in the Forum in 2023. NFD didn’t move to phase 2, but when I reached out, he gave his blesssings and passed over an earlier discord group, so the GWG could expand and invigorate the plan.
FYI, This week the GWG reached out to every accepted author to see how they are doing and how we could help.
During my election Campaign one core pillar was to Expand Community Engagement and increase decentralisation by the expansion of active and functional delegations.
I am thinking about ways in the future, we could develop an algorithm to give a percentage increase in voting weight based on labour contributions. How to strike the balance between complexity and functionality and how to balance capital contributions, which are the essence to having a large Treasury with Labour contributions. As you said, this should be a separate thread and something I would love to talk to you about.
Lastly, NFD is the chief tea maker of Novel Labs, aka Mutant Cartel, Serum City etc. One day I might get to try his magic brew.
4 Likes
Good morning. As of ~few months ago, the Bored Club Assosciation was exploring ways to get tokens into the hands of regional communities. FUDmaster of Bored Canada has often encouraged community leaders to setup delegations. Having said that, to my knowledge, progress has stalled. The overall health of delegations could use improvement…in some way…maybe a few ways!
A suggestion that could be considered is matching funds for those existing communities, as…an incentive to rally delegations? Even then, people want real tokens, and ownership of them, so “Ring-fencing” is an odd mechanic. Communities should have and control tokens, or have groups/corporations/individuals that have delegated to them (in my humble monkey-brain opinion).
3 Likes
Understand but my point is that they are delegates themselves. The top holder (MocaCN) does not “hold” 628 MOCA that wallet actually holds 1 Moca. It is a liquid democracy (the same is true for some Apecoin delegates as well) so while it is true that they have significant influence as a block they themselves are still representative in a democratic manner because a disagreement between them could still split the delegate if they act against their particular interests. In that sense I see Mocaverse very differently than centralized wallet holders.
and there is significant cross holding of decently sized Apecoin holding (includes bayc and bakc) who also own mocaverse and have staked their Apecoin. I’ll see if I can run a query in the coming days that accounts for the apecoin that is staked as it won’t show in the wallet itself.
This is where we would disagree, these were acquired/paid apecoin it was just acquired by us and we chose to delegate them to a community instead of voting them directly ourselves. It is our sovereign property that we chose to delegate. It is not free.
Getting tokens from the DAO to me is truly free because there was zero cost attached to it and it inflates the liquid democratic setup that Apecoin currently has. It hurts the majority interest because the majority paid for their tokens in circulation today and even though they are not voting they should be it is, in effect, devaluing their rights to vote should they choose to vote.
I am looking at it from the perspective of the rights to our property and that those rights are respected which does imply that there is respect for the financial nature of such property. It is not taking it from a lens of pure monetary gain.
The flipside of not respecting such rights is, in essence, saying your property is not worth what you thought it was because we can change the rules by reducing your rights. The impact will likely be that it will reduce interest in acquiring an asset knowing the rights can be reduced or altered. I am making a general statement here of course but history has shown what happens when you do that.
I have sympathy for your question around rewarding the labor of those who have contributed and I am open towards a model that can address this I just don’t think it should be done in this manner. The setup you are proposing has risks also because the number of participants have to prove themselves (I think just being level 2 may not be sufficient if you want to reward those who are active participants) and who becomes the arbiter that decides who may have an equal vote vs. another? This system can be gamed if you allow people to use majority control of voters who hold 1 apecoin to control a vault equal to 6 million especially if the participants may only be in the hundreds (i.e. for the cost of just a few hundred apecoin I can attempt to take control of millions). Sybil attacks is the kind of thing blockchain was designed to prevent and with that kind of pricing imbalance it will be subject to such attacks.
I think individuals who have contributed to the Apecoin ecosystem could have additional voting tokens, how they then wish to delegate would be up to them as individuals who the community chose to give those rights to because they have proven their contribution in one form or the other but maybe this is for another topic.
Best,
Yat
3 Likes
I do make a decent cup of tea… it’s a passage of right for Brits.
3 Likes
The two can certainly work hand in hand.
My issue with the GwG reworked NFD proposal is they have removed the real incentives.
Why would people who had previously failed to engage now engage or delegate their voting power?
Unfortunately, as NFD said - I didn’t continue as couldn’t find anyone to care - so like ape assembly their approach is doomed to fail.
Thanks.
5 Likes
Phase 2 was intended to be a collaborative proposal co-authored by enthusiastic Ape Assembly members. The problem I had was there were no enthusiastic Ape Assembly members 
Had I gotten the opportunity to author phase 2 (with evidence of support) I would have recommended a pilot programme with an incentive attached to it, along these lines:
- 500k total available votes for delegation
- 10 communities
- 50k delegated votes each
- 12 month period
- Rewards are based on a 1% compound accrual monthly i.e. every month the reward/grant equals 1% of the total delegate power. This means that a delegate community can ‘earn’ 6,341 $ape in the 12 month period
HOWEVER, if the delegate community commits to matching the delegation (by buying 50k further APE) and making their total voting power 100k votes, we double the compound rate to 2% meaning that a community can earn 26,824 $APE in the 12 month period
6 Likes
Unfortunately you cannot give a fair assessment as you are very biased due to your position at animoca imo.
So your suggestion and approval goes to somehow finding previously unengaged apecoin holders and try to convince them to participate here with zero incentives? All the while the status quo continues.
We’ll agree to disagree. But thanks.
6 Likes
One last point.
When you (animoca) saw a threat (machibigbrother) you doubled mocaversa vote weight.
But now that I suggest we match your voting weight it is somehow reducing every single apecoin’s value.
The simple fact remains too that hardly no mocaverse people own apecoin, they are actually incentivised not to as it has been gifted to them. They do not contribute to the discussions. Yet the people who do are somehow unworthy of having an equal voice.
I think you’re really reaching with some of your statements and conclusions.
Any person who has contributed the bare minimum will be eligible to join the community wallet, in comparison to mocaverse’s $12,500K entry threshold.
7 Likes
Enhancing voting power and increasing access could enhance inclusivity within the ApeCoin DAO, fostering a more diverse and representative decision-making process. It is crucial to consider the potential impact of these changes on community dynamics and the DAO’s overarching goals.
6 Likes