Voting Power - Capital vs Labour Contributions

General Suggestions
1

Great to see so much participation and great minds coming out to play. I am making a new thread specific to this topic. This is an area, which has been discussed multiple times across many threads, but never in a specific thread on this topic.

Capital Contribution

My thought process was not to reduce the principle of 1 APE = 1 Vote, but expand voting capacity. E.g. 1 APE => 1 Vote.

Saying 100 APE = 1 Vote, something that ThankApe and Prop House does already, is very easy to game. Buy 100 APE and make 100 wallets. This will soon be a near 0 cost proposition when we move to ApeChain and don’t have to pay high ETH Gas fees to do so.

Now you have 50x the voting power of a regular guy who owns 100 APE in 1 wallet. (Based on your example above, 100 APE = 2 votes)

We may move to this famous tenet (I changed it a bit)
All APE is equal, but some APE is more equal than others

Capping voting power is way too easy to break and also I would argue (on Foundation level voting) stops APE being a governance token and potentially risks it being classified as another type of token.

ThankApe previously did this, but the rewards of APE usually below 1000 APE made this less of an incentive to game the system. Effort vs Benefit. Hence, why it might be acceptable for Micro Grants but not for large AIPs that are either Grants or Investments.

If an AIP recipient (Think ThankApe) does this with funds they acquired by a grant it is up to them. How they design their company programs is not a foundation decision and hasn’t changed the principles of the ApeCoin Foundation of ApeCoin being a governance token.

BAYC/BAYC benefits - I hold both of these NFTs, but I feel that this more a capital contribution more than a labour contribution. Also one could argue we got our reward in the tokens. I bought thinking with high probability that APE was coming and factored it into my purchase price decision.
Holding 1 BAYC = x vote
Holding 1 MAYC = x vote

One of the reasons that MOCA has a high floor price is the ability for it to vote within a large ApeCoin Delegation. Many holders have committed significant capital for this benefit. Again I personally paid 2+ ETH for this.

It could be a labour contribution, if there are benefits for holding various NFTs, perhaps if it is linked to these NFTs having active and functional delegations?

Labour Contribution

This could work as a multiplier on your capital contribution.

Say 1000 APE is the voting weight if purely on Capital allocation, but could be says 1200 APE if Labour multipliers are added. Hence in this example a cap at a +20% multiplier on your capital contribution

Being an AIP accepted author = x votes
Being an AIP submitter (all the way to snapshot) = x vote
Being an AIP submitter (all the way to AR) = x vote
Forum activity (upon checking accounts) = x vote
Forum Level 2 = x vote
Forum Level 3 = x vote
Forum various metrics (think gamification on the forum) = x vote
Forum AIP Update report - x vote
Co-author of an AIP = x vote
Delegating your vote = x vote
Snapshot voting activity = x vote

There are ways to convert labour into capital e.g. APE, ThankApe is already doing this on an additional versus multiplication principle. E.g. you earned 100 APE for X posts over a season. It is a flat amount which gives you an increase in APE, hence provides you with an additional capital contribution (flat increase in voting power), which you could couple with direct labour contributions in the DAO to earn the multiplier on top.

I have reserved (months back) Zealy Apecoin name to look into this.
Specific task 1 = 1 vote
Specific task 2 = 2 votes
Specific task 3 = 3 votes

Questions

Should Labour contributions be working on a multiplier of your capital contribution or an addition to it?

Should the percentages and design of the Algorithm be published or kept secret? If published people will clearly follow specific actions to maximise their benefit. There is no good answer on this one. Think about how a search engine works.

Great to get feedback on this.

@yatsiu @LL99Starz @AllCityBAYC @furiousanger @NFD @0xSword @LiveFast9986 @Cryptosheep and others.

13 Likes
2

This seems like a really interesting mechanic. I like how this really rewards community members for different aspects, but it may also work against us for the same reasons as there is no limit to who this applies for.

Maybe a rule that says you can’t get a multiplier or an addition if you are receiving delegated APE. Maybe its only up to a certain level of APE that you have in a wallet? Just throwing out ideas.

I’m also wondering, wouldn’t implementing Quadratic Voting be an easier mechanic with less mechanisms to create and implement?

3 Likes
3

Yoo! All I can comment is that I really like that it rewards active users, even folks who have had an AIP denied. I feel like this encourages more participation. I think it also helps prevent the use of several wallets. Each wallet would need to contribute in major ways to get the multiplier benefit.

Overall I like it. Thanks for putting this together.

3 Likes
4

A multiplier would mean that people with larger capital contributions would receive greater rewards for their labor contributions while an addition would make the rewards more equitable for all participants. I will say it depends on the goals of the program and the community as a whole.

As for whether the algorithm should be published or kept secret i think publishing the algorithm would allow people to optimize their participation in the program which could lead to more effective outcomes while keeping the algorithm secret could create distrust among community members. They may feel that the system is not transparent or fair and this could lead to resentment and disengagement.

So in a nutshell i would prefer the algorithm to be published

4 Likes
5

Hi,

Certainly happy to get involved & behind these discussions. LFG

I did come up with some questions to provoke thought - I will check my notes tonight and add them to this thread, and also make a response to the questions here already. :handshake::handshake:

3 Likes
6

I will say is crucial to stop cheating the system by making many wallets with small amounts of APE, this could give someone an unfair edge. Limiting voting power may not be the ideal fix either, as it can be easily bypassed. I aim for APE to stay as a governance token.

2 Likes
7

An intriguing proposal, exploring the delicate balance between capital and labor contributions in voting power. The multi-tiered system with diverse factors like APE holdings, NFT contributions, and active participation adds depth. Transparency in the algorithm could foster understanding and fairness, but the potential for gaming the system remains a challenge. A thoughtful approach to evolving the ApeCoin governance dynamics

2 Likes
8

Concerning the visibility of the algorithm, releasing it would empower participants to increase their involvement, potentially resulting in more favorable outcomes. Conversely, keeping it undisclosed could foster mistrust within the community, leading to perceptions of unfairness and disengagement. In summary, I advocate for transparency by publishing the algorithm.

3 Likes
12

Giving extra voting power to very active ApeCoin members sounds cool at first, but also feels unfair and goes against the “one coin, one vote” idea. Making things too complex with different rules for who gets bonus votes could lead to an inner circle having too much control.
I think keeping voting weight purely based on how many ApeCoins you hold is better, even if it means less-involved holders have the same say. Maybe find other ways to reward contributors besides extra votes. Complex systems risk getting messy and unequal. Simplicity and fairness should be prioritized for this kind of crypto project.

5 Likes
13

Something similar to this discussion can be either some type of Conviction based or Merit based governance (apart from the already discussed options in previous posts : Quadratic Voting Threat Assessment)

In conviction based governance your voting power scales exponentially according to your lockup period whereas in merit based governance, one gets a certain number of points (at a level) which can be allocated to specific fields according to the background and track record of the individual. With more and more successful

Think of it like the character design menu in an RPG game where instead of spending (limited) points on the attributes you want, you pick in what matters you get a bigger say and what matters you have little say into.

It’s a very interesting topic to get into, looking forward to your thoughts on this @bigbull