Where is the fairness in allowing Apes and Mutants to sell their Tokens and then move the goal posts for those that purchased the tokens? Do we not see the wrong in that? We aren’t talking about a few million dollars invested in $Ape…. We are talking about billions of dollars spent on exchanges to acquire $ape at this point.
The DAOs main function should not be to act as a continuous price control of Mutants, Apes, and Kennels, it is our job to control the flow of DAO tokens into the open market. To invest DAO money into improving the ecosystem.
After billions of dollars in volume, with outsiders buying $ape, the excuse of, “oopsies I didn’t know what I was selling”, is not an excuse. This is real life, there are real people investing their money into this DAO. Investors are watching this discussion right now and either pulling out or not acquiring $Ape tokens due to the intentions of many to pump our NFT floors. It’s time we approach the the future in a fair and equitable means for all, not just Apes.
I’ve seen the argument that, “We as holders are the brand and we should maintain control”, and I believe that argument had weight to it the moment the initial token claim happened, as we held 100% of all $ape in circulation (We could have held it all for a period of 6 months). The moment we all began to claim, we had the free choice to either sell, hold, or purchase more $Ape. If we do not make the DAO equitable for non-NFT holders, the DAO will devalue. To put it simply, we need outsiders to invest in this DAO and participate, just as much as we need Apes and Mutants to invest in it. It is completely unfair and unequitable for outside investors if we are to hold a tight grip over the DAO, and in my opinion that is very much a Web 2 point of view while we are attempting to make leaps and bounds in Web 3 with this DAO.
Treating this DAO as if Apes, Mutants, and Kennels own it, will inevitably lead to our downfall. The world of investors are watching, I suggest we make it equitable and fair for all.
I agree x100 with @NFTArtCritic on this. The only thing I would add is that it should be fair first, and equitable second.
I agree with some of the statements made here. This is not a big club. It’s a decentralized organization much like a company! Thanks for sharing your views on this.
Totally agree, the only goal of $APE DAO is to find new use cases for the $APE token and give value to it in a fair and equitable way.
Hi, I’m new to the forum. Maybe the idea that APE COIN seeming to have an air of exclusivity for BAYC / MAYC / Kennel owners is a misconception? I don’t own any of these and have invested quite a bit in Ape Coin over the last week. It caught my attention when it appeared on my Binance app, and looking into it I can see the future potential. I had previously known of BAYC but didn’t buy into it. What really gave me confidence about Ape Coin was Yuga Labs receiving the $450 venture capital investment, and the trailer Yuga Labs dropped that mentioned Otherside will be powered by Ape Coin. With their huge investment, they have pressure to pay back their investors and have the ability to develop some really cool products. Yuga Labs have already tied Ape Coin into their universe by using it for their recent merch drop, so I don’t see why they wouldn’t do it for the Land Sale that is coming up. I think Ape Coin will be huge, so I’m investing into it, and just bought more this morning.
Well said I completely agree. There is a misconception that this token is meant solely for the BAYC ecosystem like most projects tokens are. I think a lot of apes need to re-read the very first paragraph of this site. This isn’t the time to be using the ape coin to prop up our NFTs. Our NFTs have done fine and will continue to do so. The sole focus needs to be on ape coin if we want to achieve the end goal.
100% agree with this outlook. The DAO is not & should not be controlled exclusively by any group. It isn’t for the benefit of one group & should be fair for all, especially those who didn’t have the opportunity to be airdropped free $ape. This is a diverse group of investors who all want this to DAO to succeed.
The mindset of “We must control the DAO” or “This should benefit NFT holders more” will only lead to the downfall of this before it ever even gets started. We are all invested, all have a vote, & should look to where this DAO can be within a years time & beyond. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to establish what can be a life changing organization for many, & can make history. We just need to look past immediate personal gain & push for the best possible outcome for all.
Perfectly said @Baphomet! Diversity and Inclusion is surely a value to be pursued here and that was well communicated by the team behind Yuga and Apecoin. That is, the DAO should extend the BAYC universe and welcome new people in.
I do see, however, how there’s potential friction interests at play with the DAO mission and BAYC holders. I guess there’s no right and wrong.
Growth of the DAO is absolutely contingent on the ability to bring in those who cannot afford to buy those NFTs, incentivize them to get involved, reward their growth and the value they add to the community. However, there is no getting around the initial design that has (arguably rightly so) rewarded the early adopters who could afford the NFTs. I think the only way to do this is to establish a micro-player caucus (<100 APEcoin?) to try and balance out the network imbalance.
Interesting thought,…delegates that represent different levels of investment…
You can actually organize that by delegating votes to someone.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.