Due to the recent collapse of FTX it came to my attention that Amy Wu currently sits on the board of the ApeCoin DAO. While she officially resigned from FTX (see picture below).
According to the “AIP-1 Proposing the DAO Process” on the Guidelines paragraph 2, it says:
“A board member may be removed and replaced prior to the term pursuant to a majority vote of token holders.”
What do you guys think? If we have enough votes and it makes sense to the majority of the community/DAO I would love to get in touch with @0xSword to formally create and post an AIP to remove her effective immediately.
Glad to see the OP realized that we are mid elections, and also that the recently approved council process would conflict with this idea.
The idea to remove FTX from the website seems like something we can pursue without need of an AIP, by communicating with the admins. Great observation @roosh.
The short answer seems to be - yes @RedVulkan , imo, lets clear both of those up asap. If something changes again later, we can make further adjustments. It seems SSP did forward this up the chain already, seems reasonable right now, but there may be some additional considerations since they were launch partners.
Love the responsiveness on this. We should certainly move to eliminate any connections to FTX, Voyager, or any other questionable affiliations as soon as possible. Hope the admins can respond swiftly on this.
On another note, it IS unfortunate for Amy as it’s very likely she had nothing personally to do with any of FTX’s malfeasance, but “guilty by association” very much applies here and we really can’t have any of these connections moving forward as an organization.
Since elections are so close, I think there’s a good chance that she wouldn’t run if her seat comes up for election. An AIP likely wouldn’t get through the process to remove her before that possible scenario. I do agree that she should no longer be on the board. Would it be worth waiting to submit an AIP until after we know who’s seats will be up for election and whether she would be running?
Anyone who knows crypto knows that #NYKNYC is the mantra, regardless of where the unwashed masses put their cashes. Nobody should be upset because FTX did what offshore CEXes with boards connected to shady dealers in government are made to do. If they would have found some way to continue the ponzi, no one would have any issue with the malfeasance. It’s hugely hypocritical to respond only now that the malfeasance has shown itself. It means you’ll happily accept bad actors as long as the bad doesn’t become too publicly known.
You all want a DAO that seeks out leadership based on name brand corporate experience and association with popular brands instead of building off of the #codeislaw mantra, seeking true decentralization, and expanding opportunities to talented, deserving but unknown people? This is what you get! Lie in the bed you make.
Reducing an issue to a person and levying punishment on that person is absolutely the worst way to handle a situation like this.
Like @CryptoLogically said, it is unfortunate for Amy to be mixed up with FTX. I think she should serve her term and the community should decide by vote if she should get re-elected or not. We shouldn’t judge a book by it’s cover. In terms of removing FTX from the site, it was just a comment/thought. I’m cool with whatever the admins decide.
You bring up some interesting points. But for me, if I had known what FTX was doing, I would want no part of it, them getting caught has nothing to do with it.
I think you are generalizing here. Personally, leadership based on name brand corporate experience and association with popular brands will not what I be looking for when I vote for the Special Council. While that may have it’s benefits, I think there are other qualities and skills that can be just as beneficial, if not more. I questioned in AIP-137 what was suggested as relevant experience
I feel bad for Amy. I doubt she knew what was going on and was probably blindsided just like everyone else. But now that the truth has come out about FTX, I think that the voters should have a chance to decide whether she stays or goes. The members of the DAO did not elect this Special Council in the first place. They were appointed.
I think since elections are so close, we should wait to see if she even wants to stay on the Special Council. I’d be very surprised if she does. But if on the off chance she does, and her seat is not up for elections this round, I feel an AIP would be appropriate so the community could decide what happens. Maybe they’ll vote to look past things and keep her. I don’t know. But I believe an important component of the DAO and decentralization is that the community is making the decisions.
I’m ecstatic that someone else is taking this seriously, and I appreciate all of your points, @adventurousape. Here’s the one thing we did know (at least we defi maxis) — FTX was in some shady sh!! before they tanked, because we knew they were doing the same thing as Celsius and Voyager.
There will be others, because they’ve been caught sharing ETH with each other to meet reserve requirements and other such tomfoolery.
The fix here is a change in values, because other Special Council members may very well have associations with CEXes or government orgs that just haven’t been caught yet. What then? Do they get to stay just because their ponzi held out a few weeks longer, or because their associations haven’t been proven beyond shadow of doubt by a Supreme Court ruling?
I’ll be looking for other Special Council candidates to weigh in.
Great post @adventurousape. I agree with most if not all the points you laid out.
I think you are generalizing here. Personally, leadership based on name brand corporate experience and association with popular brands will not what I be looking for when I vote for the Special Council. While that may have it’s benefits, I think there are other qualities and skills that can be just as beneficial, if not more. I questioned in AIP-137 what was suggested as relevant experience
There are actually a good amount of people in the DAO that feel the same way, including myself. The community didn’t get to provide any input on who was selected as the first five Special Council members (they were selected for us to start) so although they each have name-brand corporate experience that’s not necessarily what the DAO values. Sure some do, but some don’t. That’s not what I will be personally looking for when I’m voting for Special Council.
You all want a DAO that seeks out leadership based on name brand corporate experience and association with popular brands instead of building off of the #codeislaw mantra, seeking true decentralization, and expanding opportunities to talented, deserving but unknown people?
I actually think there are many opportunities to make things in this DAO more decentralized, such as the voting and proposal processes. I’m not sure how this is accomplished yet, but they are things I think about a lot.
As far as Amy goes, I also feel bad for her. I don’t know the details of what happened, but it’s very possible she didn’t know what was going on. Even though this might be the case, I still think this is a type of “significant event” where the DAO should get to decide next steps.
I do think it would be best to first find out more information on which Special Council members’ seats are up for re-election before we make that decision though.
I also feel bad for her. I don’t know the details of what happened, but it’s very possible she didn’t know what was going on.
I’m glad that I made statements that I knew would be a bit over-the-top, because they were meant to call out statements like this one. I’ve seen multiple people now state, with no evidence whatsoever, that “I feel bad for Amy.” “She probably didn’t know what was going on.” My point? All of us make unfounded assumptions instead of working from values.
I assumed you all were steeped in corporate starlight, and you take it badly because that’s a negative reflection on you. Yet many people “feel bad for Amy” just assuming she had nothing to do with it, even though there is no evidence either way. She could have been smoking bongs clicking “buy” on PoopooCoin watching Naruto in a Bahama jacuzzi right next to Charlotte. You don’t know. Seems like corporate starlight to me.
If I’m wrong, take emotion out of this and function according to values. What are the values of the DAO in this case? Not knee jerk reactions to cut Amy just because of FTX OR assume Amy is innocent just because of who-knows-why. What are the DAO’s values?
And @adventurousape, do the people who think like you and me have enough votes to matter? From what I’ve seen in Snapshot, the people who decide every vote don’t do Discourse at all. They just show up and swing the Mighty Paw of Ape on datass during the vote.
I’ve actually seen a lot of things saying that the people outside of Sam’s inner circle didn’t know what was going on. Do I know 100% that this is true and that she wasn’t involved? Nope, but I’ll give her and others the benefit of the doubt unless I see evidence otherwise.
I really have no idea how people will vote on different things. I doubt you and I vote the same on everything. And maybe some of the whales aren’t active on discourse, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t paying attention. This is why it’s important to have different viewpoints communicated across mediums. Especially Twitter since that’s where a lot of people get their information. ApeComms hosts a Community Hour spaces every Friday at 12PM PST. I think it would be great place for you to share your viewpoint on this outside of Discourse and Discord.
From a technical standpoint, I think that it would be difficult to write an AIP like this. My primary reasoning for that belief is that I view the Special Council as a “Working Group” of the DAO. There has been considerable debate on the subject, including line-by-line interpretations, as to whether the Ape Foundation & Special Council are separate entities. My own interpretation is that they are separate.
Assuming that status, then as a separate entity, they have significantly more autonomy, and though token holders will be voting to elect new members to serve, there is likely no easy way to remove them. I do not believe “AIP:REMOVE __ from Special Council” will work, just the same as “AIP: REMOVE SWORD from ApeComms,” likely would not be a valid AIP proposal.
Token Holders do not have the ability to dictate the processes of Working Groups. Not easily. When a group is introduced, they outline the processes, then define the relationship w/ both the token holders & the Ape Foundation. An AIP cannot (easily) be written tomorrow that says: “Each ApeComms member will wake up @ 6am, drink Ape Water, and send Mantis a good morning message.”
While that may be a funny example, the responsibility of managing a members Ape Water consumption is entirely regulated within the Working Group. If the community feels that Sword is not drinking enough Ape Water, the Working Group must make efforts correct the problem, or even decide internally to remove him. It is unlikely that a token holder vote to remove him would be anything more than symbolic.
Good point: every connection like that about FTX should be removed from the website.
In case of Amy Wu I don’t know her and don’t know exact connection with FTX or the another investment fund. As I got it, she stepped down from the FTX role - so the new election should solve the issue.
To your last sentence, Maaria herself admitted that she will be stepping down on Monday’s ApeComms Twitter Space, so that’s one seat we know for certain. We might presume Amy would be a second, but I don’t think we can know that for a fact just yet.
