RFC - Riding The Wings Of Change - Redux

Hi all - As you all know, since I joined the DAO over two months ago, back on June 29th, I have always advocated for a revision to the DAO’s current voting system. On July 20th, I outlined my concerns in my RFC : Riding The Wings Of Change which I eventually turned into a very detailed AIP-318 from the original idea.

Yesterday, after a Discord altercation (start here), in what can only be described as frustration and defeatist resignation, I withdrew that AIP, as well as my other DAO related AIP-312 (docs request). My reasoning? Why even bother? An AIP that, for all intent and purposes is destined to fail at vote, is no different from one that’s withdrawn. All that AIP ends up doing is creating a record that someone attempted to do it - while knowing the odds weren’t good.

I was all but done here, were it not for others who knew what had happened and which resulted in various discussions regarding my involvement and what it means to the DAO. In my game AIP-316, I had specifically indicated that unless circumstances dictated it, that I wasn’t planning on leaving the DAO - regardless of what happens to my AIPs.

Here’s the thing. It’s very easy to get frustrated when you find yourself spinning your wheels or when you find that despite your best efforts the odds are stacked against you. And when you find yourself in an environment whereby you can’t speak your mind without ruffling feathers as that comes with adverse consequences, that’s how you know that you might be in a community echo chamber. To wit, today’s ApeComms session on Spaces solidified this notion in my mind when someone in the session flat out said - and I am paraphrasing here - that they were in fear of speaking their mind and risk offending the power players, thus killing any hopes of their AIP ever passing. You should go and listen to the Spaces recording. If nothing else, you will also learn that some members of the Special Council were also in attendance, and hear what they had to say about a variety of things - including voting and AIP creation.

And once again, the issue of voting came up in the Spaces, coupled with the low quality and outright grifters that have come through here with AIPs.

So, today’s Spaces prompted me to create this topic and to see how engaged those who come through here will be before it closes in 30 days.

I will never get over the fact that for a DAO that’s now over a year and a half old, that until I came along, nobody bothered to put up an AIP - let alone an AIP or even a general topic - about the voting system. Yet, literally everyone - far and wide - knows that the voting system is the bane of the DAO.

Here’s the thing: It doesn’t matter how many AIPs come through here - good, bad, or ugly, if we don’t fix the voting system by making it equitable for all, then it’s ALL for naught. Some people don’t like or want to hear this, but that’s a fact.

As Waabam said today in the Spaces, you don’t need to listen to people telling you that your AIP will pass or fail. You just have to write it up and let them in the Special Council work through it. Yeah - that’s all well and good; but the SC working with AIP authors to tailor their AIP to fit within the DAO guidelines is just one side of the coin. The other side is the, yes, you guessed it - the voting system.

I am a numbers guy, that’s my thing. So, since I got here, I have run various models ranging from community engagement to AIP pass/fail trends, to voting wallets, to timings for AIP from idea, to draft, to admin review, to vote. I have all of it. If you wondered how I managed to make TL2 in under two months without actually paying attention to engagement farming and the like, there’s your answer. I pay attention - to everything that matters.

The voting system is inequitable in more ways than are visible to a casual onlooker. To the extent that even when I was writing up AIP-318, I literally had to refrain from listing all that needed addressing because I knew that the more things that I listed, the higher the chances of failure.

For example. Take a look at AIP-288 (shield voting) which failed back on July 19. Well, someone thought that calling it something else, changing a few words here and there etc. would get it to pass. As I type this, that AIP-313 is well on its way to failing. Again.

You have to ask yourself why something as simple and straightforward as privacy during voting so as to alleviate the angst and stress that comes with one’s voting decision, would be voted down. This is the part where I mention that Machi, a whale whose wallet recently grew exponentially to 3.9m $APE ahead of his upcoming AIP-304 cited his reason for voting it down as “transparency. blockchain dont lie


I could cite many - many - other examples of how some really good AIPs - all of which were in the best interests of the DAO - get voted down. And sadly, most of them don’t even give a reason for why they voted against an AIP.

Listen. Nobody - at least sensible people - would want to deal with stuff like that. At all.

If you read nothing in my AIP-318, at least read this post.

Which brings me to this subject as it relates to AIPs and voting.

There are some among us who strongly believe that AIP authors ought to seek out delegates in a bid to explain your AIP and discuss with them any issues they may have with it. You know why anyone would want to do that? It’s because they want their AIP to pass. Well, guess what? That’s not how you operate an equitable environment. Especially not a grants DAO. That’s how politics works. And like politics, complete with lobbyists and all manner of shenanigans, stuff like that is rife for abuse and corruption.

This is what I said on Discord yesterday about this.

Let me use AIP-313 as an example of why I believe that this is a terrible thing.

My personal opinion is that this is a good AIP that’s worthy of the telling of an NFT project that sparked a [dying] revolution. And it’s by an established and talented team led by @wags5000 who I had he pleasure to being with in a Spaces recently.

So, guess what? After being advised that his AIP stands little chance of passing unless he reached out to the whale delegates, here is a small example of the author’s journey. It’s harrowing to say the least.

Oh and Machi, the largest voting wallet to date, voted against that one too. “Documentary looks great. I believe Yuga should find it

I don’t even…moving along…

Then there’s the case for AIP-299 by @normie which, after reaching out to delegates, barely passed.

Then there’s this.

What? I disagree with this in its entirety.

When you go out to get a grant - for anything - you never, ever, have to do any of that. You write up your grant, stick within the guidelines, present the materials needed in support of the request. Then wait to hear back. That’s it. And that’s precisely what the founders of the DAO envisioned. And they put it in writing - right here.

Let me take this one step further. When an AIP-262 was written and subsequently passed (100% For), it called for a section that defined how the AIP benefits the DAO.

Here’s the abstract:


This proposal seeks to update the AIP Templates to include a section entitled “Benefit to ApeCoin Ecosystem”.

The purpose of this proposal is to address a recurrent issue in the ApeCoin DAO where AIPs go up to vote without a clear explanation of how they will benefit the ApeCoin ecosystem.

It would require AIP authors to explain how their proposals will benefit the ApeCoin ecosystem. If an AIP is requesting funding, it would need to explain in detail the benefit in relation to the amount of funding requested.

To me, that’s pretty clear and straightforward.

So, if you write an AIP, you would already have identified how it benefits the DAO. That means, voters - including delegates - should be able to read the AIP prior to voting. And doing that, provides all the details needed - including a section that specifically spells out the benefits to the DAO. Sure, the onus is on the author to have already clearly defined those benefits in the AIP itself, but the onus is on the voters to read the AIP and to make a determination based on that.

We absolutely do not need to be promoting this notion that authors have to chase down voters - especially whales and delegates - to get their AIP in front of them. It’s just not right. Forget about the whole privacy implications for a minute; but just imagine a new author coming here to write an AIP, then being advised that’s what he needs to do in order to get it to pass. Do you think that person is going to bother?

We have to fix the voting system. But the sad reality is that, in my opinion - and that of well-paid lawyers - only the Ape Foundation can do it if they are of the opinion that the voting system is detrimental to the DAO. No AIP is going to fix it. Which means that unless and until the Ape Foundation sees it fit to do so, the status quo will remain. Even as $APE rapidly heads to zero unabated.

If we can’t fix the voting system either via the Ape Foundation or an AIP, then there’s no other alternative but to create a new DAO (e.g. ApeCoin Redux DAO) from scratch, and close this one.


Continuing my series…

This one, as far as I can tell thus far, is a complete misnomer around here. Let me start from the beginning where the founders envisioned such a thing in the governance guidance.


  • Boldness: We don’t shy away from the weird, the hard, or the new.
  • Equality: One APE equals one APE.
  • Transparency: Processes and decisions are shared openly with the community.
  • Collective Responsibility: We leave everything better than we found it.
  • Persistence: Success is an ouroboros, not a straight line.

At the base level, this is the pure definition of transparency:

Transparency is the quality of being easily seen through , while transparency in a business or governance context refers to being open and honest. As part of corporate governance best practices, this requires disclosure of all relevant information so that others can make informed decisions.

In financial terms, this is how it’s defined:

Transparency is the access and proper disclosure of financial information, such as a company’s audited financial reports.

While I have an entire list that currently spans a total of 11 items, I am going to list the most visible ones which those who are frequent here in the community, are probably aware of.


Since their inception, there has been absolutely nothing transparent about the transparency financial reports provided to the DAO community by the Special Council. The latest one for Q3/23 - which most of us didn’t expect to be any different - prompted me to create this RFC - Ape Transparency Report thread a few days ago.

In that report, I cited that not only are the financials not audited (FYI: for a $300M CAP corp, that’s a massive Red flag of epic proportions), but there are items that require additional explanations and for which there are none.

Why are the financials not audited? That’s part of what we’re specifically paying WebSlingers to manage (via third-parties).

Here’s @Waabam proposal for an all-encompassing administrator from Feb 2023.

Here’s WebSlinger’s SOW proposal from Feb 10th and which was subsequently accepted.

Here is the finance section of that proposal:

● Administer the APE Foundation’s finances as determined by the Director, Supervisor, and Special Council including but not limited to: Accounts Payable, Accounts Receivable, Bookkeeping, Financial Reporting on a consistent and timely basis
● Determine crypto-native solution for accounting processes

Why don’t we have audited financial records which every member of this DAO is entitled to? So far, all we have are numbers put together by the very gatekeepers who are likely to screw up and cause issues down the road for the DAO.

NOTE: We don’t even have the tax records of the DAO. Yes - even for a non-prof, you have to file tax paperwork with the IRS. International entities such as the DAO are absolutely not exempt from this filing. Ever. Normally that’s Form 990 for US entities.

Where is the transparency here?


This one, all by itself, is a massive Red flag that cannot and should not be ignored. I covered this extensively in my aforementioned thread. To wit, I said:

According to Amplify, the loan was made before this was a DAO. That’s all well and good. But here’s the thing: how is a loan that pre-dates the DAO formation now sitting on the books? How is that even legal (announcer: It’s probably not)? Even so, seeing as a payment on the loan was made a few months ago, the pre-existing DAO must know who that loan was made out to and who made that payment.”

You absolutely CANNOT do this. You just can’t.

As I said in that RFC thread:

  • Who was this loan made out to?
  • Who approved/closed it?
  • What were the terms of the loan?
  • What wallet(s) are associated with it?
  • From whom was the $750K received in June 2023?

And I am all but certain that such a transaction sitting on the DAO’s books is likely to make it, among other things, lose its tax exempt status. All that would take is one letter or call to the IRS whistleblower dept. Why take that risk?

I specifically tagged every member of the Special Council in that thread, and yet, thus far, no responses. And Waabam is a lawyer btw; and I am all but certain that he is aware of how this looks.

Where is the transparency here?

I don’t even know where to begin with this one.

I came to this DAO after the fact, and so I’m not friends or buddies with the elected powers that be. Regardless of this, I am a firm believer in giving people the benefit of the doubt while paying special attention to what they do, not what they say.

The first alarm bell that caused me to question the actions of the Special Council, started with AIP-277 written by @Moonlyght, and which caused a massive sh*t storm once clear minded people outside of the DAO found out what the SC was being paid. After digging deep into what was happening, eventually co-authoring the revised version, I wrote a detailed synopsis of my findings.

After much back and forth - during which Webslinger’s attitude was basically telling us to go pound sand, what you see below was the end result. It was Returned For Reconstruction.

To be fair, I get what they’re saying and why. But here’s the thing. A similar action that pertains to contracts would inevitably be a violation of the ApeCoin governance mandate in AIP-1 which clears says this:

2. A Board member may be removed and replaced prior to the term pursuant to a majority vote of token holders.”

So, if an AIP cannot be written to alter the salaries of the “board members” (in this case, Special Council) due to contracts between those parties and the DAO, what happens if someone writes up an AIP to fire someone in the Special Council? Does that mean that AIP too would be rejected because it would cause the DAO to breach contracts with that person? See where I am going with this?

Aside from all that, the key issue here to me is that apparently the Ape Foundation created contracts which couldn’t be terminated? Is that it? How would we know if, once again, we don’t have access to those [redacted] contracts. It was for this very reason that I had created my AIP-312 Info and docs request from the Ape Foundations. As I mentioned earlier, I withdrew that one for several reasons, including the fact that given the delay (currently running at 36 days on avg) in getting AIPs to vote, we likely wouldn’t get it - if at all - in time for the revisions required by AIP-277. But some of us are already hatching a plan to solve this pressing issue of docs request.

From my metrics here and from listening to ALL of the ApeComms broadcasts available, the Special Council rarely engages with the denizens of the DAO. Don’t take my word for it, go take a look for yourself. In fact, the most engaged (as in, he’s literally everywhere within the community) Special Council person that I could see thus far, is @Gerry.

It’s interesting to note that while the SC cannot - and should not - engage in any public commentary or discourse related to AIPs and the like, the primary goal of their role isn’t to lord over the DAO like kings and queens, while rarely engaging with the community. Don’t take my word for it, this is culled from AIP-1.

  1. Every year, there is a DAO-wide vote to determine which DAO members will serve on a special council on the APE Foundation (the DAO’s “Board”). The purpose of the Board is to administer DAO proposals and serve the vision of the community.

It gets better.

On June 15th, @badteeth wrote up an idea which became AIP-282 : Information Request - Role of Special Council. it passed on Aug 2nd with overwhelming support.


The goal of this AIP idea is to establish a clear understanding of the current responsibilities of the Special Council. The Ape Foundation and the current SC are asked to provide this information to the community within 15 days of this AIP passing in the form of a written document that clearly outlines the day-to-day responsibilities, requirements, and expectations of the SC members.

It’s Sept 14th today. And so far, not a peep from the Special Council. How is that OK?

Here’s another pressing one:

There are so many ops that the Ape Foundation can take, that it seems to me the use of AIP is the de facto excuse for inaction. Lets start with the original governance mandate:

The ApeCoin community governs itself via the ApeCoin DAO, the decentralized governance framework that supports the Ecosystem Fund. The DAO follows a proposal process to vote on how the Ecosystem Fund will be distributed by the APE Foundation to promote a diverse and self-sustaining ecosystem.

This governance guide is an overview of the proposal process. It’s a living document that will evolve and improve with the DAO community’s input.

See the emphasis that I added there?

I don’t see anything that says every little action taken by the DAO, has to be delayed by upwards of 60 days before any action can be taken via an AIP. Here is one primary example:

AIP-267 Add ‘Treasury’ tab to Apecoin.com. That was written on May 29th. It’s only just now coming up to vote - in Sept.

There was another request by @bigbull to add a hidden Discourse section for TL3 members. Not happening without an AIP.

Seeing all of this, @ApeForLife (also an attorney) wrote several AIP ideas to streamline the processes. One such example is AIP-323 Authorise Special Council to issue Directives for more efficient DAO administration

Why? Why? Why? Do we need AIPs for simple procedural ops like this when we’re spending $145K (!!!) per month on WebSlingers and the entire Ape Foundation?

There’s literally nothing in AIP-1 nor in the subsequence governance mandate that says this is how the DAO was to be run.

And that’s just one aspect of this. Ask yourself why on Earth the time it takes for an AIP to go from final admin review to voting is currently running at an average of 36 days. Go take a look at the number of AIP drafts, admin review and live ones to see that there’s seemingly no plausible reason for this. It’s almost as if the Special Council only work nights and weekends - for $20K per month - each. How is that normal?

Where is the transparency here?

Don’t even get me started on this one. As I have written before, seeing how things are going and how it has been usurped by the GwG, I still cannot find a reason for the AA to even exist. At least not in the manner that it was intended.

For starters, AIP-239 barely passed back in April.

I am pretty sure that Amplify envisioned all of this actually happening when he wrote this abstract for the AIP.

The goal of this AIP is to operationalize the ApeCoin DAO through autonomous Working Groups, beginning with the Governance Working Group which will allow our community to continue the DAO approved governance process which allows for the suggestion, discussion, voting and implementation of proposals. This will empower members of the DAO to make meaningful contributions and participate in facilitating governance operations, in order to further decentralize key functions of the DAO. Working Groups enable a sustainable infrastructure which will allow the DAO to operate efficiently while adapting to any challenges.

No offense to Amplify, but in my opinion, the FAQ is basically another version of Web3 dreams.txt. Here’s an excerpt from that:

  • Creating Working Groups will help facilitate the grant process, create opportunities for DAO members, and further decentralize our DAO.

  • Long-term goal is to remove reliance on the APE Foundation and create a fully decentralized and sustainable DAO

  • Paving a clear path for community members to participate, contribute, and be rewarded for their contributions to ApeCoin DAO.

  • Paying ApeCoin DAO employees competitively for their work in the DAO.

That AIP passed back in April, but by the time the dust settled on the ramifications of creating such a group that would literally knee cap the power structure inherent in the DAO, he almost unwittingly killed it mere months later in July with this AIP idea Enable DAO-Wide Voting to Elect Working Group Stewards.

You should probably read my synopsis in that now withdrawn AIP.

There is a reason that this AIP barely passed, and with such a small margin. It wasn’t popular. You know why? Because it was patently unnecessary. Nevertheless, it passed admin review and went to vote. Shockingly, it passed. Now, here we are.

The AA has no long-term budget (don’t even get me started on that one; see my comment in AIP-317 related to budgets), no mandate, no leadership - and no direction. Oh, but wait! We did have another election, which btw, appeared out of nowhere one fine day on Aug 15th. Without any notice whatsoever. There we were doing the usual time-wasting nonsense on Discord and boom! We’re in yet another election!!

Despite the fact that the time taken to do all that could have been spent electing the leaders required for the AA, we had to go vote for interim positions (spokesperson and coordinator) that were NEVER mandated by the AIP that created the Ape Assembly. Heck, there’s an entire write-up about that particular gem over here: Announcing the $Ape Assembly.

And so, we went to vote on Aug 21st for bigbull as spokesperson and Bojangleguy as coordinator. Disclaimer: I voted for these two because I came to recognize that they were best suited for the roles and that they would get it done. Yet, even as I type this, word is that Bojangleguy has since quit that elected role. And at the time of this writing, so far not a single word about it has been made to the community. As a member of AA myself, when I asked about it on Discord yesterday, well, here is the response that I received from the very same spokesperson we elected:

So much for transparency, eh?

I have seen all the arguments about how the AA needed more people in order to boost its numbers so that “the fate of the DAO isn’t in the hands of too few people”*. As I’ve said before - and I will say this again - there’s NOTHING in the AIP nor the mandate that says the AA has to have ANY number of people for it to be created. So, it matters not whether it is 10 people, the current 70 or so, nor 5000. It doesn’t matter. The AA can have 4 members and it would still need to elect its leaders. And even so, there’s truly nothing in AIP-239 that even says that. That’s what you get when people write up AIPs with glaring omissions.

And as luck would have it, they went and created a convoluted and prohibitive method of actually joining the AA. Yet, those same people are the ones talking about the low engagement numbers and sign-ups for AA.

*It’s rather hilarious to me that people are claiming that too few members in the AA would be bad for the DAO; even as the pre-existing fate of the DAO is in dire straights while being led by a small group of people who seemingly can’t get anything - literally anything tangible - done that moves the DAO forward. But yeah, a 500 person AA is totally going to work. I can’t even take this seriously anymore; I just can’t.

So, now we have a well-intentioned AIP that created the AA with barely a mention.

And that’s not even the most hilarious part. No, that would be that for a powerful entity such as the Ape Assembly, in the entirety of AIP-239, it only appeared once. Barely an inconvenience mention. I’m not even joking. Take a look.


And that, my friends, is precisely why, thus far, there’s no clear path forward for the Ape Assembly. And so, they can make it anything they want it to be because the AIP itself wasn’t clear on specifically what it was meant to be or do.

UPDATE: For more info on the Ape Assembly, do this:

  • Go to AIP-239
  • Expand “Governance Working Group Charter”
  • Expand “Governance Working Group Initiatives:”
  • Read item #2 “The Ape Assembly”

I am adding this here because it continues to be yet another peeve of mine as it represents a glaring liability risk. That aside from how the moderation is handled. You can’t argue. You can’t disagree. Heck, you can’t even render an opposing opinion that’s not rooted in the Web3 “head in the clouds” mantra without being threatened with a timeout or even a banning. How is that OK?

At this point, not many community members realize that the ApeCoin Discord does not belong to the DAO, and that it isn’t an official service like Discourse, the web domain, Snapshot domain etc.

My understand is that it belongs to Lost - one of the facilitators in the GwG. I didn’t even know about this until I wrote an AIP some time ago to hire a professional person (much like our DAO secretary) to run the Discord with proper and even-handed guidance. I withdrew that AIP when I found this out, and also because that role would inevitably fall within the purview of the working groups.

I believe that it is in the best interests of the DAO to either :

  1. Compensate (they can’t buy the server as that would be illegal) Lost for his involvement in setting up the server, and hand over the administration of the server to the Ape Foundation so it becomes an official entity or

  2. Create an official Discord server and migrate all the pre-existing data over. This can be done within the span of a weekend. It’s not rocket science.

In addition to this, we need a neutral and even-handed third-party team or firm to handle the community interactions without fear or favor. Since I have been here, I have recorded many examples - complete with messages and images - where the community has not been managed in an even-handed and neutral manner befitting a community sitting atop a DAO with a $300M market cap.

This DAO isn’t someone’s hobby project. Not when it’s spending millions of Dollars to elected leaders whose job it is to protect and spur its growth.

Despite the size of the Ape community, the engagement here on Discourse and on Discord is basically a rounding error compared to the community size. Heck, even in the voting, the avg number of voters (including delegated wallets) across all AIPs to date, sits at an avg of 483. I plan to one day expand the delegates to get an accurate per voter count, though I don’t expect there to be any large numbers when taking the size of the community into account.

And this low engagement is a product of people either not being interested to any reasonable extent, are afraid to engage because of the relationship between leadership and the community power players or they don’t find any value in said engagement.

If we don’t get a grip on this, the community engagement will continue to decline and stagnate. Just like the $APE token.

Update: Sept 14th @ 2:37pm - Ape Assembly Meeting #7

Every corporation that is failing either changes course and/or adapts or succumbs to complacency and the destructive status quo. Here in our DAO, we’re stuck with people we can neither reach nor hold to account. That’s not normal. At all.

And we’re also subject to a completely broken and loose interpretation of what the founders and WG0 intended for this DAO to be and how it was to operate. They’re basically treating the ApeCoin DAO mandate as mere suggestions as opposed to actions that should be strictly adhered to.

In corps that have boards, the end result - after several warnings and advisories - is to take legal action against the board and/or the company, either to compel action or to punish for inaction or breaches in their fiduciary duty.

Our DAO is patently broken. They’re not going to fix it.

When there’s zero consequence for failure, what incentive is there to succeed - at anything?

As de facto members of the DAO - just like any corp - we have only three choices that I see here:

  1. Write AIPs to fix things one at a time; and hope that they actually go up for vote - and pass.
  2. Hire an attorney and get official and responsive actions and data from the Ape Foundation.
  3. Write an AIP to shutdown the DAO and as a result either recreate a new one from scratch with applicable safeguards, procedures, and new people -or- distribute the entire treasury to the DAO members or to various charities which the community can vote on.

There’s no other way that I can see. I am always willing and able to be the bad guy in the name of the greater good. And so, if it means that I am going to be the first one to now take action, so be it.

ps. I was planning to insert this Jan 17th dissenting opinion by Forj to the previous administrators, Cartan Group, but I couldn’t find an applicable place for it. Just go and read it. A Public Letter to Cartan Group

My point is, similarly, AIP-304, an 11m $APE ask, which goes to vote today, had a fundamental change made by the Special Council. We will now never know what that change was nor how it affects the DAO grant. See the change below. That’s a material change that requires further explanation because we in the DAO are never privy to all these supa sekret contracts.

When we asked? Silence.

1 Like

Still reading the rest, but I think the information requested from AIP-282 was shared.

Obvs you not seeing it shows that the dissemination of info was not the best.

Actually, I can’t seem to locate it either so perhaps @12GAUGE.admin can help link it here.

SSP :call_me_hand:t4:


@ssp1111 Thanks, but it’s nowhere on Discourse. I checked. From the abstract, it’s supposed to be shared with the community. I assume that to mean in the same manner as the not-so-transparent financial records that Vulkcan keeps track of among other things.

The goal of this AIP idea is to establish a clear understanding of the current responsibilities of the Special Council. The Ape Foundation and the current SC are asked to provide this information to the community within 15 days of this AIP passing in the form of a written document that clearly outlines the day-to-day responsibilities, requirements, and expectations of the SC members.”

The information requested in AIP-282 was shared with the community here:


Thanks. I actually saw that when it went up; I even liked it when I saw it. But it didn’t appear to be anything official other than yet another standard Discourse advisory post.

Here are my issues with this:

  1. The subject doesn’t tie it to AIP-282. APE Foundation Players – The Special Council
  2. There’s nothing in there that links it or associates it with AIP-282

@Vulkan This is an opportunity to consider those changes seeing as that thread is locked and I can’t post it there.

1 Like

Correct, and it’s a very toxic form of centralization. Same as IRL.


That might as well have just said “f-u”. It’s a vague, meaningless word salad akin to the breathless disclaimer in pharma ads that mentions everything under the sun as a CYA. Transparent, it isn’t.

Cool that we tried though!


I agree with your point about voting, we should definitely look at different mechanics to avoid depending on a few select whales that can skew the votes.


In various on-going discussions, I believe that a path ahead is being forged and one which I believe would represent the first steps towards an active measures direction for the Apecoin DAO.

More info coming soon. Stay tuned.