This is a very important discussion to have, thank you for bringing it up @ChrisL!
Overall, I agree with you and don’t think it’s a positive way to incentivize DAO governance. However, I suspect that during the review phase of an AIP there are already many questions around funding and incentives. For example a very common question is “How does this benefit the broader APE community, or ApeCoin DAO as a whole?”
Further, there is no real way to prevent bribes from happening through other channels besides the AIP itself. So while I definitely agree philosophically, I feel it could only serve to add more governance bloat and restrictions, rules, etc. I think less is more, and letting the voters decide the outcome of any discussion is important.
This is a very fringe case with lots of nuance around it but here’s an example of where vote bribing worked as a valid incentive mechanism:
The tldr; from the situation is the Tribe DAO suffered a large exploit with many retail victims involved. There was an off chain (Snapshot) governance proposal to reimburse the victims from their treasury which passed with ~99% support. Then the Tribe/Rari Team decided to veto the vote, failed to reimburse, and went silent for several weeks while the market collapsed. This eventually culminated in several other DAOs teaming together with Olympus DAO to finally resolve the situation resulting in everyone getting reimbursed except TRIBE investors.
Cobie did a small write up at the time highlighting the poor governance practices.
At the end of the day, retail was made whole and investors took on the risk and lost, as they should have done. If the company you invest money into fails, you shouldn’t see a return from that right?
This scenario both highlights the need for fully on-chain governance and decentralized working groups with aligned interests and incentives. In the Tribe/Rari hack scenario, the “core team” was directly working against the interests of the DAO. They clearly voted to reimburse the victims of the exploit.
Anyway, large rant sorry but I think it’s a pretty important consideration. “Sometimes bribing people is a valid incentive mechanism for change. ”
Overall I think a move towards having more governance oversight by decentralized working groups vs. implementing strict policies for AIP authors is a better way to go.