Unlike @ssp1111 , I actually read the document… this is great initiative @Amplify , which I am for initially because it seems to protect the main DAO from having to submit itself to any wrapper, which is what I consider the best way forward.
Basically, setting up a new structure, wrapping and funding that structure, and letting it interact with off-chain/regulated entities. That’s an acceptable compromise in my book.
I do hope, however, that AIPs and other actions that have nothing to do with the US can still be funded through the core DAO. It seems as though this entire structure is made to protect the DAO from US scrutiny, which does not necessitate submitting the entirety of all DAO activities to such scrutiny. Binance showed the way here and is a good template to follow.
Unlike @Mantis, I actually can’t read… this is a great initiative @Amplify
Thank you to everyone who contributed to this conversation! Seriously, the dialogue has been awesome.
To summarize what I’ve heard:
Reasons to do this
- Other DAO’s have built robust infrastructure by making up front investments in legal infrastructure. @amplify’s MakerDAO structure stands out on this front.
- Clarity will be good for everyone! This isn’t a proposal to do anything, it’s a proposal to scope doing something.
Reasons not to do this
- Even if we do this effectively there’s inherent risk that the proposal increases likelihood ApeCoin and/or Yuga assets are viewed as securities
- Timing - FTX blow up, SEC investigation, bad times in crypto generally
- Timing - there’s not a meaningful revenue stream or opportunity today that truly justifies doing this right now, we have billion(s) of $$ in the treasury and have yet to deploy an 8-figure check.
My overall POV after reading this is that while this IS something we should do, the opportunity doesn’t outweigh the risk today, and we should focus first on growing the value of $APE through ecosystem growth + let things settle before re-evaluating.
That said, if anyone else wants to push this forward I’m fully supportive! It’s a DAO!
Appreciate you putting this idea out here on the forum. It has been talked about here and there quite a bit via different channels but it’s been great to get the conversation more centralized, organized and documented in one place.
@Amplify brought great references to DAO treasury management. We saw many DAOs diversify their treasuries and Maker is an excellent example here. One big difference between ApeCoin DAO and many other DAOs is, ApeCoin is independent while most DAOs are still controlled by the project team. I’d love to hear more thoughts from legal professionals on this.
But I do agree with @zheerwagen that right now, in this market situation, the first priority for the DAO is creating value for the $APE ecosystem.
Great article! This can open the discussion for ways/steps to move the DAO forward. Great find!
Is there really any risk to the scope of your original proposal - “Should we ask Cartan Group to scope setting up the DAO to accept funds?”
None of the “Reasons not to do this” are an actual risk. Implementation may be a risk. Scoping it is not a risk.
I’d urge you to push it forward, even in the as-is state. Let’s get it to a vote.
I think there is actual risk in perpetuating this convo in a way that will attract attention outside of this community. Passed AIPs have news articles written about them, using the bug bounty as an example since most recent:
I think 3-6 months from now this may be worth pushing forward but given the timing is about the worst ever I don’t want to be the one to push it forward at this moment. Happy to re-evaluate in 6-months and pick up then!
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
@zheerwagen has requested to withdraw his application. This AIP will be moved to and remain in the Withdrawn AIPs category.