My thoughts on 2/3: AIP-265: 2/3 "Supermajority" Requirement to Alter Fundamental Tenets of ApeCoin DAO and its Operations - #15 by Sasha
I disagree with a fee as it’s an easy requirement to meet (esp for companies who already raised a seed, like ApeWater from your example). Any suggestion that separates applicants by economic class instead of quality of idea/proposal I would be against.
I do agree that better governance process and DAO segregation should be implemented. See here: Ape16z - an Angel/Seed Fund managed by professional VCs - #25 by Sasha. In my evaluations, I treat treasury money like my own (well, better even, ha), and I think being careful (but not unreasonably harsh) is important.
Right now we’re trying to push everything through a process that’s really only optimal for small-to-medium grants. We need some due diligence team that can work with authors offline to interview/gather info and then report back, maybe, if proposal is over $X amount?
Agree on this for large projects. I would say however that “ROI” is subjective and isn’t just money. Art has ROI. Events. Shows. Other entertainment. Hackathons. None may result in any $ape sink, but must remain one of categories DAO invests is (just question is how much). The DAO is not a venture fund and has no imperative to only prioritize monetary returns. I’d argue it’s very far from that. Not sure if you meant it that way, but I’ve seen a few people talk about it that way.