RFC : Riding The Wings Of Change

Hi all :

As a legacy software (gaming) dev, data and numbers are my thing. Long before I joined, and while I was looking around for a Web3 community to adopt, I ran some analysis on voting snapshots wrt to topics, counts etc.

I am not going to release the data because I don’t want to create any friction or angst; but safe to say, it’s patently shocking. And I am all but certain that anyone here who has paid any attention, is probably aware.

The thread by @DGT rekindled my interest in this subject; and so, I decided to create this Request For Comment thread.

Much has been written by psychologists about why some people tend to vote against their own self interests. So, I won’t get into that.

Let me use AIP-246 as a recent example, and which a whopping 19% voted against.

Everyone here agrees that the APE community isn’t growing beyond its 127K hodlers bubble..

And less than 8K of those are part of the community here on Discourse and on Discord.

And nothing that Yuga has done thus far has moved the needle in terms of APE adoption, increase in the value of $Ape, or community growth. And despite their best efforts, I haven’t seen anything that leads me to believe that Otherside is going to move the needle. At least not in the short-term. Looking at the charts, the HV:MTL release did nothing to change this; nor did either of the Otherside preview trips. It’s basically the same bubble involved in the churn. Precisely the same thing currently going on in the NFT market whereby it’s the same actors vying to see who dies last.

From the charts, it’s easy to also see that the formation of this DAO a little over a year ago didn’t change this either - other than the $Ape spike - after which the majority dumped.

So, why on Earth would 19% of people vote against AIP-246 that’s specifically targeted at marketing & communication which will ultimately have a positive (all things being equal) growth effect for the DAO?

Better yet, I like the idea of AIP-280; but who here truly believes that such integration is going to move the aforementioned needles? Nevertheless, despite being FREE marketing for the DAO, 0.03% voted against it.

It gets better. Lets take a look at AIP-275, yet another beneficial effort that would have provided valuable insight into how to grow this ecosystem. It failed because 21.52% voted against it.

Look at AIP-279, another marketing outreach effort. 31.8% voted against it. As someone who knows the value of targeted marketing and the effects that it can have when properly deployed, I can say that @AmericanApe and his team know precisely how that works. I have actually done various marketing activities for my games; including comics in partnership with DC Comics (!) - with more on the way. You can see them here and here.

I too felt that the key to growth wasn’t in NFTs - obviously Yuga knows this too - hence the reason that I opened the AIP idea (which I don’t plan on revisiting in the foreseeable future) of integrating the community into my upcoming Web3 games so that by participating in things like Web3 focused mechanics, design tests etc - on their own server - that type of Web2/Web3 community integration would spark growth alongside various marketing efforts. Look how that turned out.

I could go on, but you get the picture.

Yesterday, someone (not sure if it was @Sasha or @ssp1111) in the Twitter Spaces called this DAO a plutocracy - at which point everyone dashed off to Google. Thing is, there’s truth to that if you look at the voting stats, while using a baseline of 500K $Ape as the definition for a whale, if going by the number of tokens in circulation. Imagine my surprise when whales subsequently killed AIP-288 which was specifically designed to spur engagement in our processes. I expect that any further attempts to change the voting system so that we move away from this sort of thing, is likely to be killed by whales.

I think that anyone with just a few brain cells is probably aware that the whole voting system is likely being gamed and abused. It’s crypto, so, given historical trends, that sort of thing is par for the course.

Why then would anyone who has bought $5 in $Ape want to participate in this community when they see that the more wealth you have the more likely it is that the wealthy will control the votes - even those that are clearly in the best interests of the community.

FYI. I even ran AI metrics against the AIP threads. Get this; a whopping 97.3% avg of voters didn’t participate in the AIP discussion thread!! The data is there; you can go check this yourself. For the thread views, go to the summary to see the engagement. So, they voted based on the snapshot summary. That’s absolutely nuts to me.

Since it’s inception, the DAO has spent more time voting on patently inconsequential (to its growth & prosperity) things than it has voted on actual things that would lead to growth & prosperity. It’s almost as if the whole thing was setup to fail, while doing nothing to safeguard against manipulation, self-dealing, corruption - and not to mention ensuring that people aren’t in the position to short the token via insider dealings which are designed to aid that sort of thing.

The voting issue is a massive roadblock to growth & prosperity. And if steps aren’t taken quickly to address this, the DAO will die - like so many before it. This goes beyond the $Ape token - which is on a consistent trend to zero. At some point, we need to completely disregard the value of the token and focus on building a community. But to what end? Why are we here? Is it to make money or to belong to something bigger? A $700M startup in the real world is headed straight for bankruptcy if it were run in this way. Especially since this DAO - as controlled by the whales - isn’t in the least bit interested in actually making money, let alone engaging in activities which would yield tangible returns. It’s basically operating like a slush fund.

The other day, I had a good laugh at the fact that AIP-277 by @Moonlyght is seemingly stuck in admin review - a process controlled by the very people whose salaries it’s designed to trim. And other AIP that came after it, already went for vote. Not that I expect it to pass (I mean, c’mon now), but who here thinks that’s normal?

Yesterday, I suggested adopting a 1 person, 1 vote, 24hr span, and @Amplify said the current 3-6 day span was done to accommodate different time zones. I don’t understand that at all. A 24 hr clock is the same around the world. We regularly hold meetings with people half way across the world. Heck, when I need to speak with people in HK, we figure it out - and they are +12 hrs ahead of me. Yet, somehow modifying the voting time line is inconvenient because of time zones? Seriously?

Something needs to change. Spending time voting and on time-wasting activities isn’t a path forward. Nor is incessant clout chasing.

For example, it’s already August, and the Metaverse Working Group - which barely passed (because most whales literally abstained) - is likely to drag on and roll right into the next leadership election in 2024. Especially since there are still a host of related actions (yay! more voting) that still need to be taken in order for it to be functional. Despite the fact that the DAO wasn’t setup so that everything had to be voted on by the community. It’s only this way due to the fact that owning $Ape puts you in the DAO. The Special Council which sits atop everything is more than capable and well suited to make decisions and take actions for a myriad of things that don’t need to go to vote. Even so, we still need to trust that the SC isn’t actually influenced by whales in any regard.

Your comments are welcome. Please understand that I am neither making accusations nor inferring that anyone has done anything wrong. So, just look at the facts while taking my opinions into account if you so choose. At the end of the day, I would like to think that someone with my experience, and having grown up on Usenet and also watched communities rise and fall over the decades, ought to know a thing or two.


Just to clarify - are you suggesting that we move to a wallet based (one wallet one vote) voting system that lasts 24 hours?

That was my original idea; until it was quickly suggested that anyone can create a million wallets with little ease, even if linking them to our voting system isn’t as simple.

I think it should be 1 [registered] user, 1 vote.

It’s easier to identify a user and a wallet - collectively. We already do this via Discourse and Discord in getting someone in the Ape Assembly.

Or, just ignore the value of the voting wallets. So, whales are completely out of the equation.

Plus, if we make Discourse sign-ups a pre-requisite, then make it based on a trust level to vote, it becomes even harder to game the system. And also, everyone will feel like their vote really counted, instead of how much $Ape they have.

It doesn’t matter how we do it, for the good of the community and it’s prosperity prospects, the voting system has to change. We have to do it.

1 Like

Shockingly (not really), I just got wind of yet another AIP-251 that’s beneficial to the DAO and which - checks notes - 6.7% voted against.

Know what that AIP is about?

The Ultimate Guide For ApeCoin DAO Newcomers

People voted against this. I have no words.

And yet again, this - to me - is something that the SC should have commissioned instead of it being an AIP subject to a DAO wide vote. Using this example, if the DAO were a corp, the janitor would need permission to order toilet paper for the bathrooms.

1 Like

Ayeee LFG!!!

I look forward to see how this develops and what it turns into.

Let me know if I can help with anything! :handshake:

It’s crazy to see this number! I thought the number was high, but not this high! :exploding_head:

1 Like


Thanks! Will do.

I know, right? I was expecting it to be high due to the number of Discourse participants vs the number of $Ape hodlers who actually vote; but I too didn’t expect it to be that high. DAO members basically aren’t voting.

The end result is that the voting process is literally controlled and decided by a cabal* of $Ape whales - in about 14 wallets. Someone on the Spaces yesterday said 10 whale wallets were responsible.

*Announcer: that probably sounded more hilarious in his head

ps. I like how nobody is commenting in any meaningful way, let alone liking the post. This despite the fact that the data is all there. I guess nobody wants to upset the cart. And that’s how we die.


Engagement sucks or our posts suck. lol :skull:

lol!! Why can’t it be both?

Okay, now you’ve made it awkward to hit the like button :laughing:.

  • I was gonna remind the readers that the entire 19.05% vote against AIP-246 was from the Mocaverse DAO and even there, it was a 54-45 split against.

  • I may have used the term Plutocracy, but only parroting what Badteeth has been saying all week long about what’s happening in the DAO.

Onto your overall analysis.

Don’t disagree at all except for maybe the idea that the Special Council sits atop this empire. Perhaps they could be and ought to be making more “obvious” changes to streamline processes etc, but then perhaps the DAO would be asking things like “who gave them that power?”, etc.

Anyway, not to go down paths that you are obviously very familiar with, let’s focus on the Assembly:

I’d love it if we could increase awareness of and participation in the Assembly. If we think that there are currently 400+ eligible, about 100 signed up in Discord and about 40-50 constants - what do you think is an acceptable number that the Assembly needs in order to validate any voting that occurs there?

I have my own number, curious to know yours :thinking:.

In summary, yes there are many problems to solve for in the DAO. May I encourage you to continue surfacing insights so that they are kept front and center and to continue seeking and offering solutions.

Trusting you’ll be one of the folks that stick around.

SSP :call_me_hand:t4:


lol! I know, right? It’s called a guilt trip, wrapped in an enigma :joy:

Yeah, I am aware. As I just said on Discord regarding AIP-251…

No, seriously though, why would anyone vote against or even abstain from voting for something like that? That’s not normal. How is this normal?”

It beggars belief. How is the DAO going to grow under these circumstances? Do these folks think that sitting on $700M until it hits 0 is a good plan?”

"I think the bigger issue that they know that $Ape grants are going to get converted to fiat; which they believe depresses the token even further. Pretty sure some of these same folks just gave $300K to make movies and comics; but $10K for a DAO doc!? OMG! We’re going to zero. :rofl::rofl::rofl:"

Good point. But they do in fact sit atop that hill, and thus have the authority to take steps that empower the DAO. I mean, when it all goes sideways, who is responsible? The leaders. Some like to call the DAO a democracy. It isn’t. Not by any stretch. Regardless, leaders are appointed to lead, not sit back in fear of a community lynching if they make unpopular decisions. That’s how leadership works. You own everything that comes with it. Including the $250K per year salary. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Also, it says so right there in AIP-1 and AIP-137, which, hilariously some people voted against. :joy::joy::joy:

Indeed; though that one is already off to a poor start. Baby steps, I guess. I am hopeful. But again, what’s the point if they’re just going to get knee-capped and mirred in bs and incessant voting? tbh, if the SC were effective and took a stance, there would be no need for an Ape Assembly. But hey, we have a slush fund to blow on needless things. :skull_and_crossbones:

No more than 7. It’s like the SCOTUS. Anything higher and we’re not getting anything done. I guarantee it.

Indeed. I actually do plan on sticking around because I love the folks that I have met thus far, and I believe that I can make a difference given my background and experience in many areas. I didn’t spend all this time on Web3 community research, picked this one, then pitched my tent outside of town just so I can get run out and thrown off a cliff. :eyes:

That said, my only concern is that my rather direct, no bs, way of thinking and doing things, may rub some people the wrong way. But, as with all communities, you just have to be polite, respectful, and know where the line is. Then don’t cross it.

1 Like

I believe SSP was asking how many Ape Assembly member votes would be necessary to make a vote “valid.” If only 7 people voted, would that be enough? I personally would want all 100, as any vote less than that would require Assembly members to really rally the troops, maybe even onboard some newcomers.

Then again, that number could end up stifling the process if we regularly can’t get that turnout. So it’s either 50 or 100 for me :rofl:

All statements and opinions are my own, not on behalf of the Ape Foundation.

There you have it. That’s the point that I was making.

I think 7 is perfectly fine. The number of votes (7, 50, 100) isn’t relevant for an outcome. All that matters is that the issue gets voted on. Remember, the Ape Assembly isn’t a token based consensus body.

Haha yes, probably both then! lol :wink:

Anything that involves token based voting is going to run into the same issues as the DAO wide voting mechanism. It’s inefficient and rife for fraudulent activity. Not to mention the fact that it disenfranchises the poor. It should never have been done that way in the first place.

I mean, look at this (from the Metaverse channel on Discord) post from @badteeth .

  • DAO-wide vote – all tokens are voted for single candidate
  • DAO-wide vote – all tokens split amongst as many candidates as desired
  • DAO-wide vote – one vote per wallet for a single candidate
  • DAO-wide vote – three votes per wallet for three chosen candidates, one vote each
  • Ape Assembly – one vote per member for a single candidate
  • Ape Assembly – three votes per member for three chosen candidates, one vote each
  • Ape Assembly – if more than 10 candidates, AA narrows down candidates to five, then put up for a DAO-wide vote (mechanics TBD by winner of votes above)

This is the sort of time-wasting (having to consistently deal with voting types, processes etc) stuff that we’re dealing with. And very few are in the least bit interested in changing the status quo, probably out of fear of upsetting the clan and the cabal of whales.

It all starts with 1 person/account = 1 vote, 24hrs - across the board.

Then, sub-entities such as the Ape Assembly can use the 7 person leadership (voted in by the DAO) to make decisions for that group.

1 Ape 1 vote is a basic principle of the ApeCoin Dao.

There are many ways to balance things with community Dao’s such as Mocana of Mocaverse as an example. They have between 1.5m-2m Ape.

I put some thoughts on how to expand this here.

Mocaverse is an interesting Sub Dao with a large voting ability. However, it would be good if this initiative leads to 50 Community Delegated Daos NOT Sub-daos (with 10-100k ApeCoin delegated) from each collection that has NFTs acquired. They would become mini Mocana’s.

10KTF created a multi-IP or Multi-Collection offering and this type of reach could be achieved here with ApeCoin.

Personally I have suggested to the BullsontheBlock community to put 10ETH into Apecoin and use the snapshot with over 1.4k signed up to function more like Mocana.eth (Snapshot)
I used BOTB as an example, but this could be one of 50 collectible projects.
For disclosure, I hold many of them, though am not part of the NFT company running the collection. FYI I also hold many other NFTs.

How is that the case when in fact it’s based on the number of tokens held, as per the voting strategy setup in the Snapshot settings? What am I missing?

APE means ApeCoin, the APE Token.

I think confusion arises with BAYC referring to themselves as Apes.

Apes vs APE

  1. DAO members vote on Snapshot. One ApeCoin is equal to one vote. As votes cannot be divided into fractions and the total number of votes shouldn’t ever exceed the number of tokens minted, the number of votes will be rounded down if a fractional number of tokens is owned by the voter (i.e., 100.1 tokens will result in 100 votes, and so will 100.9 tokens). The voting options for a Live AIP are “In favor” and “Against.” Voting “In favor” means the voter is in favor of implementing the AIP exactly as-is. Voting “Against” means the vote is against implementing the AIP exactly as-is — you may vote “Against” to encourage the author to resubmit the AIP after making changes.

ah-ok. Got it. Thanks for the clarity.

Anyway, that’s what I am suggesting needs to be changed. And it can be done easily in the Snapshot voting strategy setup. e.g. it can be setup to ignore the value of the tokens held by the voter.


5 Apes holding 10 APE tokens each = 50 votes

vs this:

5 Apes holding 10 APE tokens each = 5 votes

That is a complete change to the principal of the DAO. DAO’s are Organisations and Not Governments. Personally I am very against changing this core tenant. There are many solutions which can lead to more voting such as Delegation. We could easily reach 100 communities with maybe over 10m ApeCoin in those communities Dao’s. This would solve your concern.

If the core tenet was changed I would probably reduce my involvement significantly in the ApeCoin Dao.

FYI I am no ApeCoin whale with about 15,000 ApeCoin.

1 Like

Yes - I fully understand that. But tenets and principles can be revised and adjusted based on circumstances.

Yes - we have delegation, but given the number of Apes and the very low number of voting participation, it’s very clear that the voting is controlled by a fixed (I counted 14 as mentioned above) number of entities. How is that not a problem?

Yes - but I fail to see how that’s relevant here. The DAO doesn’t need to be a government for it to act in the best interests of its members.

To wit. This excerpt is basically what I am going on about.

The theory behind this practice is users who are more monetarily invested in the DAO are incentivized to act in good faith. Imagine a user who owns 25% overall voting power. This user can participate in bad acts; however, by doing so, the user will jeopardize the value of their 25% holding.”

Easier said then done.

I am not saying that my suggestion - which changes the core tenet of the DAO - is the way to go. It was just one of many suggestions which have been floating around. Regardless, I simply don’t understand why people would be resistant to a simple 1 Ape = 1 vote rule which is equal and fair to ALL in the DAO.

Understood. Are you delegating your tokens, by any chance?

Anyway, outside of just saying this core tenet, principle shouldn’t be changed etc etc. Would you mind explaining to me why you think 1 Ape = 1 vote isn’t worth the change?