Yeah I think that’s super reasonable, I can def get on board with that. My one thought in the opposite direction is that right now I’d think the most passionate potential dao members are nft holders. To be fair, those nft holders already got generous apecoin airdrops, but on the other side of that, I’d say they still represent the majority of people interested in the dao at this moment, and given that I’m wondering if it could be beneficial further incentivizing them.
1 Like
I really like this - seems middle of the road. A little incentive, and new owners will still feel included, and you still reward apecoin holders heavier and promote dao involvement that way.
1 Like
Yeah I thought the same initially, but similarly, I understand the reasoning behind not staking nfts for apecoin. Will be interesting seeing what happens!
1 Like
I’m also strongly opposed to staking only an NFT for $APE yield. I will vote to stick with AIP-5 with caps proposed here > We Like The Caps -- now, what should they be? - #2 by galligan
3 Likes
I agree with you - I think they can definitely each be successful on their own. I can’t answer for @Ape583 , but the one reason I would currently look at them as somewhat linked is that I think the vast majority of participants here are apes, and it may be quite a while before there are a lot of apecoin holders that are actually passionate about the dao that are outside the bayc nft community.
I can totally understand the argument that this dao is meant to be much bigger than the bayc nfts, but at the moment I would say they’re extremely tightly connected - I don’t see too many passionate apecoin holders that don’t own bayc nfts, or that don’t associate the dao with the bayc nft ecosystem.
It may very well be the goal to create that distance, and that’s fine, but I think it’s clear that at the moment the most active people here are people who have bayc nfts and care about them. The biggest concern I have with differentiating them this early is that the vast majority of the community are bayc nft holders, and before we’re able to get people passionate about the dao itself from outside the community, I think it may be prudent to focus on nft holders at the moment.
3 Likes
I’ve definitely seen some good arguments for that, why do you think the nfts shouldn’t be staked directly?
1 Like
Giving massively outsized rewards and priority to BAYC NFT holders without requiring them to also be invested in $APE will not get people outside the DAO excited; it will dissuade them.
BAYC holders were already airdropped significant quantities of APE and have plenty of incentive to be involved if they haven’t sold. And we are talking about providing boosted pools to them as well. If that’s not enough incentive to be involved, then they shouldn’t be here.
11 Likes
Same as many of the arguments presented already.
This is $APE coin DAO and believe AIP-5 was pitched correctly to incentivise existing BAYC / MAYC and BAKC holders to invest into $APE while at the same time showing new $APE holders that this not all about NFT holders. All groups get staking incentives without making it seem $APE DAO is being a cash cow for early NFT adopters.
4 Likes
You are right but I think we can reward BAYC and MAYC holders with another protocols, I was thinking about a lending/borrowing protocol, for example, where you can borrow $APE giving your BAYC as collateral.
Staking system should incentivize involvement in the $APE DAO with or without the ownership of a BAYC or MAYC. Maybe the way to go is the creation of vested token with voting power and rewards imitating Curve DAO and its veCRV.
I think that we should be gratefull to all that BAYC community have built and give some advantages, but we cant compromise the growth of the $APE DAO creating two kind of $APE holders; the ones who hold a BAYC and the ones who dont.
4 Likes
Yeah I can get on board with that, I think those are reasonable reasons. And just to be clear I wasn’t asking you because I disagree, I was just curious for your thoughts. Appreciate you sharing.
4 Likes
Makes sense, appreciate your reasoning!
2 Likes
Good points, I can definitely appreciate that!
1 Like
Just be able of staking because you have a nft will close the door to the main public who can not afford the nft but could just have some exposure to apecoin…
A lot people already complain about the elitism of this and could be negative for the whole project.
Balance is the key in my humble opinion
6 Likes
As a means to create an equitable and fair DAO for all $ape investors, I firmly back Asherah on this one.
I do not believe that this DAO should be an incentive for investors to buy an BAYC, MAYC, or BAKC. The initial claim of DAO tokens was sufficient enough. It is Yuga Labs’ job to continue to add/maintain value in holding any of the associated NFTs.
If we want this DAO to succeed, there needs to be an equal and level playing field for all $Ape coin buyers/investors.
We will limit the value in joining or holding a membership to this DAO if we do not create a DAO that has an equal and level playing field for all $ape coin holders.
Everyone should keep in mind that as holders of BAYC/MAYC/BAKC, we held 100% of control of this DAO during the initial $ape claim. Some of us chose to sell, hold, and buy more. Some of us are outsiders who chose to buy $ape. We cannot only consider ourselves as BAYC NFT holders going forward.
5 Likes
I commend your honesty, however it is deceitful to sell off $ape for financial gain to investors and then suggest creating a proposal to benefit yourself for future financial gain. This idea alone, devalues the DAO, a passed proposal would greatly devalue the DAO.
Some people sold off other assets, had money on the side for taxes, or sold off other assets to pay for their taxes. Using taxes as an excuse to further squeeze the DAO for more financial gain, is absurd.
6 Likes
Yeah for sure! Just to be clear, either way I think the public should be able to stake with or without an NFT. The question was just should NFTs ALSO be able to stake by themselves in addition to apecoin.
1 Like
I can definitely appreciate that, and I promise my intent wasn’t to be deceitful, though I can see why it might look that way. I was posting an honest question that I thought warranted discussion after having seen many other people in the community with the same concern.
I completely agree I’ve already received more value than I could’ve previously imagined, and admitted upfront that the thought came to me from a selfish place. But my purpose in posting it was actually largely to hear from people like you who oppose the idea.
I knew I was thinking about this from my point of view, and genuinely wanted to hear arguments for why it doesn’t make sense.
I’m really happy that you and others have come out and explained the reasoning behind not doing this because I’ve learned a lot, and I largely agree with you and intend to help vote and push the proposals with caps through myself.
That was my purpose in posting, because even if I was wrong and was thinking about something that wasn’t good for the DAO, I wanted to know why that was the case, and I think I have some really good answers to that now.
Appreciate your time in explaining and helping educate me on it, and I’m glad we got to have the discussion. I do think it’s important that even when people have ideas that may be bad for the DAO that we discuss them, because that keeps communications open and helps educate people to a more well-rounded view of the ecosystem.
2 Likes
Ahh, I don’t think you were being deceitful as you clearly stated that you had somewhat of a selfish intention. I’m saying as a whole, for us to move the goal post and have NFT staking, it would be pretty deceitful to $ape investors.
4 Likes
Ahh, I gotcha, that makes sense.
I can definitely understand both sides of the argument, but it is a mix of 3 factors that matter to me.
1 the direction the DAO votes one the proposals that make it to that point
2 the BAYC/YL’s interpretation on how to implement said proposal (because there arent any numbers written in stone on any of the AIPs so far) and number
3 is how or if the decisions will/can be altered for whatever reason(s) in the future after theyvare implemented