Reform of the Voting Systems in the ApeCoin DAO

[SmartAPE]

@chimperton

I think VERY strong arguments could be made that this action would be best for the price of $APE both short and long-term.

At this point, despite what CT would like us to believe, I still believe that the token is going to remain depressed and within the < $1 range for the foreseeable future. And, all things being equal, the precipitous fall below $0.30c is still on track to happen sometime in Q1/25 - if not before.

And so, I fail to see how authors needing to have 100K APE helps the token in any way. In fact, it would literally deter people from actually submitting proposals because we already have a $250K / 69% threshold to meet for large asks.

Oh, and we’re out of money. Ape Foundation Transparency Report - 2024 - Q1. So, there’s that.

@chimperton

Especially since the Banana Bill was made to effectively defund the DAO and move the money into a system that would hopefully be more effective. (Of which I am dubious but that’s neither here nor there.)

I don’t see it as defunding the DAO. I see the Banana Bill as augmenting the DAO grants systeml similar to how GwG and ThankApe also have grant programs that are an extension of the DAO funding. BB takes the voting responsibility away from the voting community and puts it in the hands of a team of 8-10 people. To date, the DAO has funded approx $80M in various programs - with zero ROI - some of which are blatant grifts. So, the $100M BB carve out is there to create a program that does the same thing, but with the hopes of some ROI to the DAO. It’s why I was originally opposed to it because we already had a program, ThankApe, setup to do specifically that, and which they’ve done exceptionally well.

Thing is, giving money away isn’t all that hard. Giving money away with the right intentions, to the right people, to the right projects - with the expectations that you will get some or all of it back, is the cornerstone of risk.

@chimperton

At least if I was being asked to debate and pick a side with a goal of winning, there would be a lot less ammo to be potentially used against me if I were to pick the burn everything path, as the DAO has historically, over the course of years, has not been proven to generate meaningful ROI.

Indeed. However, in all fairness - and I used to get a lot of flak for this - the DAO wasn’t setup to generate revenue. So, it didn’t. From the start, it was the sort of wink-wink nonsense that Web3 is notorious for. I mean, who with more than 10 brain cells, thought that an entity setup to just give away money via grants - and with zero investments - was destined to succeed in the long-term? Here we are. And so, it’s no surprise that the leadership came out in Nov 2023 and said yeah, we can totally receive income. Then proceeded to retain the status quo, unabeted.

@chimperton

If I were to argue what was the single most positive impact $APE has had on anything thus far, it would be the initial charity donation to the Jane Goodall Foundation. At least that was a public good.

Wait! So you mean to tell me that forking out $12M to buy NFTs for a museum or a $5M marketing deal with a crap F1 team were bad ideas?