Continuing the discussion from AIP-5 Staking Proposal - Discussion:
Perhaps this could be a super simplistic way of thinking about it, but what if the caps are based on the airdrop? This would ensure airdrop recipients can stake up to 100% of what they received, but beyond that would need to stake in the $APE-specific pool.
So therefore my proposal is:
- BAYC pool: 10,094 $APE cap per BAYC
- MAYC pool: 2,042 $APE cap per MAYC
- BAKC pool: 856 $APE cap per BAKC
From the airdrop:
Was just going to say something similar, but is there any worry that there will be a need for $APE in upcoming utilities?
With $APE being the preferred currency of the Otherside metaverse, and likely other Yuga Labs projects (speculative, sure), I think it’s likely it’ll be used for utility elsewhere.
But since the NFTs can be uncommitted at any time, and $APE unstaked, it seems like it shouldn’t be that big of a deal to stake all with the exception of smart contract risk.
this assumes people who have the nft have access to ape, I myself bought after the airdrop under the impression I would be earning passive income from the nft if staked, even at these allocation levels I would have to come up with a serious amount of $ape in addition to the outlay of buying my MAYC.
Patrick, reasonable concern but trying to just limit this issue to Caps, if the DAO majority wanted them. Soft staking NFT is another idea that is more controversial and probably needs its own thread.
I think capping at the rate of the drop, or current floor ratios, makes a lot of sense. Extra $APE can be pooled in the dedicated ape coin pool. No reason you can’t buy more as needed, you just won’t get the better staking pool. Gives everybody and equal and fair chance and if you own more than one NFT, you get commensurate bonus for that.
Who feels like writing a proposal? Perhaps Animoca/BTang will take the lead if we demonstrate a large majority prefer caps this way.
I’m not so certain caps or even staking pools set aside for holders of BAYC/MAYC/BAKC are even fair for $ape token holders as a whole. When this DAO was created, BAYC and MAYC members controlled 100% of the tokens, thus controlled 100% of the DAO. As people sold their tokens to non BAYC/MAYC/BAKC members, they sold their voting power. To implement caps and staking pools centered around holding Apes in one’s wallet, is in my opinion being used to boost the floor prices of BAYC/MAYC/BAKC, thus devaluing the purpose of holding onto or buying $ape, and devaluing the purpose of a DAO.
When the initial claim happened, BAYC holders received 5 times the number of tokens that MAYC holders received, if everyone held and staked, BAYC members would receive 5 times the staking rewards and would end up with 5 times the control of the DAO. If an MAYC or BAKC holder purchased $ape from an exchange and staked, they will lose more and more power as staking progresses with limits imposed. What’s the fairness in that?
At this point, I believe that there should not be tiered staking levels or caps. If you bought more $ape you shouldn’t be punished. If you don’t hold a BAYC/MAYC/BAKC but purchased $ape, you shouldn’t be punished. We should reward those that believe in the DAO and have purchased $ape from those that sold.
Excellent and fair point. We are working in Animoca’s framework with the pools. We could re-work that but we’d need some staking/tokenomics experts.
Assuming we want caps and the pools as they exist (which seems to be what I’m hearing on NFT Twitter) anyone propose any different caps?
As long as their is a sufficient lockup on $ape, I don’t believe caps are necessary. We have to be cognizant of what brings value to this DAO, what would make someone on the outside of the BAYC ecosystem want to join our DAO, purchase DAO tokens, and actively partake in the future of the DAO. I do not the fear that a whale will come in from outside of the ecosystem and gain control over the DAO, that is why we have an elected Board. What I do fear, is that people are far too concerned about keeping a tight grip over the DAO for BAYC/MAYC/BAKC holders, which is what we had at the very start. Was it even fair for members to sell $ape to outsiders if we are going to limit their staking ability, thus limit their power over time?
That’s a very good point you make. Is it fair to other ApeDAO holders
OTOH, does the DAO prosper with non-ape holders? I doubt it. We’re the brand. Hence we need to incentive Ape holders to be part of the DAO and hold the coin more so than non-ape holders. Stoner thought.
Yes but if that were the case, Apes and Mutants would have never of sold. We’d have 100% control if no one sold. Now we have to make sure that $Ape holders who bought from the outside of the ecosystem are very much a part of the process and have an equal opportunity when it comes to staking.
There are also Mutants like myself who have been buying $ape non stop, why should I continue to buy $ape if I’m limited to only staking 6,000 $ape? At that point, why would I even lockup my NFTs or $ape to stake? I’m more motivated to keep my $ape liquid and rug while everyone else is locked in the staking pool. The same thing that a whale would do if they are unable to stake a large portion.
Respectfully @NFTArtCritic, your point is somewhat of an entirely self-interested take, (which I also have as the polar opposite for self-interest purposes as well, so no judgement). I would say your in a very small minority of NFT holders who have been in the fortunate position to be able to acquire significantly more $APE than what was airdropped (kudos to you ser).
However, surely no cap would just raise the barrier for entry to staking in “NFT only pools” even higher than it already would be for new entrants like myself who acquired their ape after the airdrop. Speaking first hand it is bad enough that I currently won’t be able to passively earn $APE just by holding (which when I bought I thought was the case), but now competing with $APE whales to get my fair staking cut from the NFT only pools with no cap completely turns off new holders of the NFTs to engage with the DAO in my opinion.
You ask “why should I continue to buy $APE if I’m limited to only staking 6,000 $APE” surely if you have excess $APE over your cap limit, you then deploy that $APE in the “$APE only pool”?
I think many NFT holders who sold their airdropped $APE did not realise what they were selling, from Twitter threads and comments a vast majority thought this was an opportunity to take some capital off the table but then be able to earn more $APE by staking their “NFTs only” to get back an allocation of $APE over time.
The whole proposal was poorly written and extremely complex for non-defi folk, you obviously completely understood the proposal and respect to you for how you have held and accumulated more $APE. But punishing holders who sold after reading a poorly written proposal with no $APE staking caps, and also punishing holders who bought after the drop will only impact the DAO negatively long term in my opinion.
I think @ApeLawyer.eth sums this last point up well, “does the DAO prosper with non-ape holders? I doubt it. We’re the brand”
I completely agree, first concern should be making NFT holders also prosper as well $APE only holders.
Taking care of NFT holders has successfully led everyone to this point, it would be foolish to just dismiss them now.
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 you not see the wrong in that? We aren’t talking about $100…. We are talking about billions of USD spent on exchanges to acquire $ape at this point.
The DAOs main function should not be to act as a continuous pump of Mutants, Apes, and Kennels, it is our job to control the flow 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, “oooopsies 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, it’s time we approach the the future in a fair and equitable means for all, not just Apes.
I suggest keeping accusatory and personal attacks out of this forum good sir.
I shared my thoughts about this in another post and I agree with your points. It has gotten some support from both BAYC and MAYC hodlers along with $APE hodlers.
What have I said:
We love BAYC, MAYC, and BAKC. But there is something important being constantly forgotten:
Apecoin DAO isn’t Yugalabs, nor is it run by Yugalabs and Yugalabs has no responsibility for Apecoin DAO as they stated.
We need educated people about that first to move forward.
The notion of giving staking opportunities to BAYC, MAYC, and KAYC is an unfair toll on Apecoin DAO.
The %15 airdrop was a fair headstart but Apecoin DAO shouldn’t be subjected to carrying BAYC, MAYC, and KAYC holders through its entire existence.
It is now a decentralized entity that is gifted to the community to run, it can & should rhyme with Yugalabs values and incentives although it shouldn’t constantly supplement it.
Disclaimer: I only hold $APECOIN, so there is a little bit of principal-agent problem there.
So, I would love to hear the opinions of BAYC and MAYC holders.
I think discussing bias is good. I sold 1/3rd of my coin, so I’m a bit in the middle. I bought some more and locked it in an LP. I could certainly buy more and exceed my proposed cap.
Our first priority is what benefits the ApeDAO and I stand on my point re it needing to better incentivize NFT holders. Caps do that and are “fair” to newcomers, which I personally think is really important. I don’t think goal posts have been moved considering the only staking proposal that existed was just that—a proposal.
With that said, this will be a majority rules situation. Would love to hear from Machi, Herb, Dinga, Dfarmer and others with substantial bags and voting power. Or anyone with an opinion :).
I agree with fiyu on the post and comments.
My bias is for the the DAO to become a success. Yes, I hold a large amount of $ape, however I also have 3 Mutants and 1 Dog, which would also benefit me greatly by using the DAO as a means to pump the floor prices of our NFTs.
It is the job of Yuga labs to continue providing more value to Apes, Mutants, and Dogs, and It would almost seem that many have forgotten how much added value Yuga has added over the past year. The DAO is a completely separate entity, although a huge part of the ecosystem. If the DAO fails, if outside investors do not feel comfortable in buying $Ape, I am confident that it will lead to negative effects on Yuga ecosystem. We must keep the DAO equitable for all, whether you hold 1 $ape token or 1 million $ape tokens, everyone has the ability to buy more, sell, and hold.
Keep in mind, at the very start of this, we were in position to control 100% of DAO tokens, many of us chose to sell for monetary gain. With some of these arguments I am seeing, I’m wondering if it was even fair to the public, for us to create an exchangeable ERC-20 token.
That’s a good point—the DAO’s success has some importance to Yuga/BAYC, etc.
It sounds like you are a solid “no” on caps, and you’ve made some good points why. However, Animoca via Yat Siu has indicated they intended to introduce caps and Garga supported caps in the form of an amendment.
If caps are likely coming, I’d like to hear any thoughts on how much those caps should be to provide some guidance for Animoca when they re-draft AIPs 4/5, assuming they still love us.
If you found personal attacks in a post that started with “Respectfully” then I can’t help you friend. As a somewhat of a meme king on discord id of thought, you might have thicker skin than being offended by some fair criticism of the proposal from someone from a different point of view by a post claim NFT holder which I am. No offence was intended sir, but I do ask if caps come in, what is the problem with you putting your excess $APE in the $APE only pool?