We need to remain professional within this discussion. I ask that you do not mischaracterize my intentions, as I benefit regardless of which approach we take (I hold multiple mutants and a dog). My only bias is for us to have a successful and equitable DAO for all.
3 Likes
I am the little guy within this space. I have read every post so far on every thread. Based on the rhetoric that I read, the majority of those who have NFTās want NFT Staking, the majority of those without NFTās do not want NFT staking. The NFT holders likely have the upper hand in voting power from the get go. (Maybe that will change). My gut churns as I read more and more about those that want additional benefit from their NFTās. In my opinion they already have received that benefit, and if they want to override those here with less power, and push them out, then they can. But for me, if this becomes the case I will bail, sell all of my coins and the greed of the NFT holders can chase each other. Is this going to be a true and fair DAO or not? This is the only question that needs to be answered. @NFTArtCritic & @fiyu fiyu have the correct mind set imho.
2 Likes
FWIW, Iāve got a few of the apes but donāt think that NFT staking is at all the way to go.
The NFT holders got their (our) benefit, which was the $APE. The upside in staking those should be capped at the airdrop amount.
Allow NFT holders to stake in certain pools, with caps, and maybe get a bit more for staking, but beyond that no special treatment.
I donāt see how NFT-only staking benefits the $APE ecosystem.
5 Likes
@mg thank you for your post. For the sake of discussion and so others like myself understand better, why should NFT holders get a bit more of any stake? In my perspective those who stake the most APE should get the larger portions of any benefit, NFT holder or not. NFT holders already have the advantage of more APE to begin withā¦
Thanks for your reply in advance.
Thatās a really good question, and probably something I should have explained more of.
Iāll try my best to relate it to my own personal situation:
I minted four apes without any clue that they would amount to anything at all. I currently still hold one, but sold three along the way. Two went for 1 ETH or less in the beginning, because in all honesty the money was going to help, and it was a crazy return on investment in a short period of time. I told more of the story here.
As time has gone on, and the apes have become wildly valuable, theyāve represented a crazy amount of money, and certainly would help my personal situation. Iāve held onto one long, unsure of when Iād find some kind of liquidity. Well, here we are. $APE represents the liquidity that I could get without having to sell the NFTs. And I did peel away some of it just to feel a little less pressure.
But now as I sit here, Iām left with a choice. I could hold onto my BAYC and two MAYCs, and dump the $APE for cash, but the staking is actually a major incentive.
Yes, those of us with apes represent large holders of the $APE token right now, but thatās exactly what the $APE community at large should want the most right now. And incentivizing the largest holders to keep holding is only going to help everything. If there is an incentivized pool, and I have some extra reason to hold onto the $APE beyond the basics, well, then despite the pressure Iāll hold onto them.
However, if the NFT holders have the same treatment, I believe it could create incredible downward pressure on the token, resulting in a lot of $APE whales to sell more of their bags than they might have otherwise with incentivized staking.
For the sake of propping up the $APE price, itās in the best interest of everyone (even non-NFT holders), to incentivize the NFT holders to keep and stake the $APE.
Hope this helps 
5 Likes
I agree with your sentiment Galligan. I think separate staking pools with caps (as proposed by Animoca, just without express identification for the cap amount) finds the balance well.
But for Apes being Apes, there wouldnāt be a DAO. These entities are inextricably intertwined and but for the SEC you can imagine this would have been soft staking right out the gate. This currently proposed set up gives incentives for all and a nod to NFT holders, however slight it may be.
With that said, I would love to keep focus not on IF or WHY caps but HOW MUCH. Any thoughts and reasoning behind this?
1 Like
$ape price in my opinion is barely reliant on staking. I believe the upcoming land sale as well as in-metaverse marketplace utilizing $ape as the sole currency, is far more beneficial to the price.
2 Likes
The DAO can and should prosper with BAYC and MAYC holders involved, but they arenāt necessary and we shouldnāt make them necessary.
Letās be clear, this DAO isnāt the BAYC.
This DAO has a massive treasury of $APE and is governed by $APE holders. It will be successful if $APE is successful and the DAO will be successful if $APE is successful. They are inextricably linked. This is not the case with the BAYC. It is possible for the BAYC to succeed and $APE to fail and vice versa.
Iām in favor of creating pools with caps per NFT to incentivize BAYC NFT holders to be involved in the ecosystem. I think it is reasonable that these caps are a function of the amount that was originally dropped to each respective collection. In the future we might consider offering similar incentives to other projects if they integrate $APE into their projects.
Iām am strongly opposed to creating staking pools that only require an NFT to yield APE.
20 Likes
Yep. My first post in here is one such proposal:
4 Likes
@mg thank you for your explanation. If I understand your logic correctly the idea is to keep NFT holders involved in the DAO. However, with the APE being the currency listed as that for the upcoming metaverse, and the land sale (which I have read NFT holders will get some airdrop or be incentives from the onset pertaining to it), NFT holders already have an incentive and financial concern of the value of APE (present and future) as it pertains to their assets(present and future) and APE value. If they want to insure the value is maintained and managed well, then they need to participate in the DAO and assist in developing it and its infrastructure. Like @asherah has stated they are inextricably linked. I will caveat my statements with the fact that I am new to much of these concepts (I do not think I am the only one), and I may be off base in my own logic, missing some of the facts and other idiosyncrasies that play a role in how to create the best and most successful DOA the world will know.
I appreciate others opinions and please correct me or add to this for the benefit of all. Thanks in advance for speaking your heart.
2 Likes
I agree with this. I initially had an expectation that the NFTs would generate $APE without the need to stake the coin, but later realized that this would be an extremely problematic execution.
I was writing out a long reply, but in order to keep things simple:
- This is the ApeCoin DAO, not BAYC/MAYC DAO. Our NFTs give us incredible utility, but should not be able to generate $APE without staking $APE.
- I understand that many who sold their $APE are upset, but they were financially compensated for the $APE they sold and that was a choice they made. Selling your $APE means selling your ability to vote and participate.
- Those who participate should be rewarded. Those who do not participate should not be rewarded.
- I voted no on the proposals solely because there was no listed cap. I agree with others in having the staking cap match 1 to 1 what each NFT was airdropped.
- This is the simplest execution, and also the fairest IMO.
- I will vote against any proposal that allows NFTs to generate $APE without staking $APE, and I will lobby for others to do the same.
25 Likes
totally agree on the point regarding $APE =/= BAYC.
in a way we are connected, in another we arenāt. and we surely canāt realistically expect every BAYC holder to engage or even care about whats going on with $APE also.
i love the idea of the concept for the cap of putting it into relation to the amount dropped - as this also reflects the āvalueā yuga initially gave holders of the respective collections. so why not translate this into the way the staking amounts/caps are delegated.
not a professional but seems like one of the more realistic and validated approaches from my view.
2 Likes
Totally agree with what you wrote, I was going to write a long reply to the start of this thread but many good points have already been made and I do not want to reiterate points already made by many others.
So very quickly, I also think NFT based pools proposed in AIP-5 is a good idea along with the caps proposed by @mg.
6 Likes
Hi All, as wrote in the previous thread, I believe anything between 1x and 2x of the drop received by each NFT would be fair.
Within this range it is just a matter to decide who should benefit more? If the NFT holder, then should be 1x (for self-interest I would like this). If the APE DAO overall, then closer to 2x.
Letās also remember that true APE DAO is not BAYC, but larger with new stakeholders, still the backbone of the APE DAO it is the BAYC community with their NFTs, at least for some time, and hopefully for long time. So we need to find the balance and I believe should be in the abovementioned range.
1 Like
hosting a twitter space all day for open discussion of $ape @N1te3GUY
I wanted to leave this here to share my thoughts on the caps. ApeCoin DAO AIP-4 and AIP-5. Hello Apes, Mutants, Doggosā¦ | by Streetwood | Mar, 2022 | Medium
1 Like
I like the simplicity of this. Logically Iām having trouble wrapping my head around whether this structure makes sense (1) as more supply comes into the market; or (2) as staking rewards decline over the 3 year period.
Also, assuming 100% of all NFTs are staked everyoneās token rewards would be reduced by their pro rata amount on a per NFT basis, correct? So if the staking rewards are 100M in Y1 and 100% of BAYC/MAYC/BAKC are staked, no one would hit the cap. Just want to make sure Iām thinking about it correctly.
When you say āno one would hit the capā, do you mean no one will get a return equal to the capped amount?
From my understanding of the discussions so far, the max cap being discussed is the max amount each NFT holder can put into their respective staking pool and not the reward amount.
As an example:
- if all the BAYC NFT holders staked $ApeCoin upto the maximum cap as proposed by @mg in the BAYC NFT pool. Then the pool reward for each BAYC holder would be equal to 47,105,000 / 10,000 or 4710.5 $ApeCoins for that year.
or
- if all the MAYC NFT holders staked $ApeCoin upto the maximum cap in the MAYC NFT pool. Then the pool reward for each MAYC holder would be equal 19,060,000 / 18,537* or 1028.21 $ApeCoins for that year.
*MAYC numbers is accurate as of the time of this post only.
Of course things are never that simple but each NFT holders reward would be calculable with the equation below:
Iād like to see the cap set to somewhere around 70-80% of the amounts each NFT was given. This would allow for some of the $APE to be used within the ecosystem, but lock up the majority. But under no circumstances do I think it should be more than what was given.
3 Likes
Iād like to see the caps set low, and NFT pools reduced (if our goal is to reward $ape holders over NFT holders). If you set a high cap, you are just setting up a situation where people will borrow to meet the cap. Why put this burden on NFT holders? And why open the door for arbitrageurs and bots?
If we want NFT holders to get less, letās just allocate less of the pool to them at a low cap.
The other thing ā setting a cap at or above the drop amount is just going to wash out any benefit of holding the NFT at all. At that point there is enough flexibility of $ape going into different pools that any upside is going to get arbed out and the gated pools will only earn what the ungated pool does. If weāre going to do that, we might as well just have a single pool and forget all this nonsense (I am not arguing for this, I just think we need to be clear about the implications of what weāre doing).
2 Likes