No one EVER has said “I was elected to play in the NFL” or “I was elected to be this family’s lawyer”, etc.
It is semantically correct perhaps, but untrue that it’s “appropriate” to use the term that way in any real-life idiomatic sense.
Further, knowledgeable people with relevant experience appointing or hiring someone into a role is the exact opposite of what any responsible person calls an “election” in which people with no real interest or knowledge - or in our case whales - can negate or overwhelm the votes of those with relevant knowledge or experience.
An extra issue and unique issue in our voting system is that before long those in power (not “the community”) will accumulate so much $APE that they can control any vote they collectively want. Long before the proposed 2-year term limit is up.
That’s not being addressed. Proper oversight would raise big red flags on that point alone.
I’ve nothing against whales running the vote as the system stands now. If the proposed politicized system is put in place though, then it’ll be whales in government too.
You’re right in that “appropriate” may not have been the correct term here, but we agree this is semantics.
At the proposed compensation and an ApeCoin price of $4.2, Stewards will be compensated on average 2142 APE per month for 1 year. Assuming they are reelected once, serve up to their limit, and have no IRL obligations in which they are required to sell APE to meet, they will have (in theory) “accumulated” ~51,408 APE. If we compare this to recent Snapshot voting, this is far below what can be considered “a whale.” This scenario is highly unlikely, as most people applying to perform this work full-time will likely have IRL obligations they must meet.
I have attempted over and over to illustrate the many layers of constant compromise, oversight, accountability, reflection periods, integrity and turn over that have been presented in the Working Group Guidelines proposal. I’m sorry if we cannot manage to find any alignment on solutions for your concerns, although the beauty of our DAO is that anyone is welcome to propose an AIP. I would implore you to explore writing a proposal to address these more systemic DAO-wide issues we’ve been discussing, just as I hope the Ape Assembly would do if ratified.
The fifth and final component of the WG0 Mandate, as ratified in AIP-196 was:
WG0 will propose future Official ApeCoin DAO Working Group guidelines and objectives via AIP that will also delegate all WG0 responsibilities to said working groups by the end of the 3-month term and dissolve.
The Working Group proposal has been incredibly well researched, iterated on extensively with the community in the most transparent AIP proposal process to date, takes into account the input of the Special Council, Ape Foundation, some of the best attorneys in the DAO space, along with many DAO professionals. It further decentralizes the operations of the DAO, empowers our community, and by doing so strengthens our ecosystem.
Your proposal does none of these things. It advocates for complete centralization of all DAO operations under the Ape Foundation – to a group of people who aren’t employees of the Ape Foundation. It is both practically and legally impossible.
I’ve attended many twitter spaces & WG workshops that were hosted by you during both the steward elections & prior. Including your special council run. We’ve met twice in person as well. We’ve come to different conclusions, after both having looked at the WG suggestions, working with AI & team members, and gathering feedback from the community. Important to me, is that in this thread, this idea is judged on it’s merits. Shouldthisforward to token holders, they will look at these comments to make a decision.
I have been inspired by recent posts by PPman on twitter. I think they are funny. He made a drawing!
I’ve just finished doing my own drawing. I’ve come to a different conclusion than you, and I’d like it evaluated fairly in this thread. I do not think that the proposed Gov working groups & additional roadmaps are what the community will enjoy. I also think that the Ape Assembly will have a lot of unwritten power. Those conversations have been core to the whole setup of the WG model, its all based around the stewards.
I now include the picture I’ve drawn. This is based on a lot of same data & convos you’ve had.
And I request that my idea & vision, after meeting many, be able to go through the process of evaluation.
I appreciate you putting forth an alternative proposal. While it would definitely be easier and more efficient to do things this way, I do have some questions and concerns.
My concerns with it are similar to those I had when Cartan wanted to expand and take over communications. It centralizes the DAO further and puts more power into the hands of the Foundation which goes against the DAO’s goals of further decentralization.
According to the website, The Foundation is not an overseer and is designed to become more decentralized over time.
Have you spoken to any members of the Special Council to see if this plan is even viable and they are able to take on these additional responsibilities? The Stewards changed the process in our Community Discourse Facilitators proposal to a vote instead of having the Special Council engage them after feedback from them.
Also, you keep saying that you believe this proposal is legally compliant, on what basis do you make those assumptions? Have you spoken to a lawyer about this?
Thank you for this proposal, I look forward to your reply.
-AA
The current proposal is for $9000 / mo each with a 2-year term limit (for now), according to what you’d detailed. Then there’s forum moderating, Thank Ape (while posting / participating as already paid to do), Spaces, newsletters … some persons are already (or will be, as proposed) enjoying multiple (all?) of these streams. Multiplied by staking. All with no real oversight or even a one-stop accounting of who/what/when or for how long. Not begrudging here, just observing.
I’d clearly stated “control any vote they collectively want” (emphasis added), while you responded with an individual example that doesn’t reflect current reality or proposals.
Truth is that it adds up, especially if voting as a block to keep themselves entrenched or usher in other initiatives that effectively do so, with added very high incentive of otherwise having to go out looking for an IRL job when the terms are done. (I’m making a big presumption that to add $9000+++ / mo value one would be working full time for the DAO, but with no real oversight proposed who knows?)
Yet with zero neutral 3rd-party oversight. Curious - what type of law do those lawyers specialize in?
In any case, just because something is legal, doesn’t make it right or transparent. Self-reporting, without neutral external oversight / audit, is NOT transparency.
AA, re: “community-led governance designed to become more decentralized over time”.
There is no such design. Maybe they meant “intended”. A bit semantic, but also matters, because…
Wouldn’t we first need to determine what the DAO’s purpose and focus, and limits if any, is?
In the past week or so I’ve had two Stewards tell me very different options/understandings/visions of what the DAO is even fundamentally about.
A “grants DAO” is very different - I think - than an “Anything We Want It To Be DAO”.
So how is it we’re proposing adding various highly-paid layers of governance even though the fundamental purpose and scope isn’t widely known or agreed upon?
The current proposal is for forum moderating, not in addition to.
First, “posting and participating” is both not “Discourse moderation or facilitation,” nor is it a contribution type on thankape.com. Second, our DAO has no control over grant recipients and what they do with their projects / initiatives after they receive funding.
I don’t see how someone’s personal assets, and the yield on those assets, are relevant to the discussion of compensating individuals for work performed.
The DAO secretary will attend these meetings and relay this progress. I apologize we are not providing the level of scrutiny you desire. Should Stewards clock in and clock out every day or just continue to do an excellent job day in and day out like they have in the past? If the work is being completed to satisfaction, does it make any difference how long it takes?
Instead of going back and forth on this, I again would implore you to please write an AIP to engage a third party auditor to audit not only the Working Groups, but the entirety of our DAO because you seem to think it’s a systemic issue.
Thank you for your consistent feedback on the issues we all struggle with as a community.
We’ve spoken to many DAO professionals with no skin in the game at ApeCoin DAO that gave us some excellent unbiased perspectives on this proposal.
The attorneys we’ve spoken with specialize in DAO governance and Cayman Islands Foundation law.
Also, the DAO is voting on this proposal which provides the ultimate decentralized oversight in this situation.
You continue to focus on oversight, I’m curious what you assume the negative impact of this proposal might be with the multiple checks and balances we’ve built in?
Have you been happy with what the WG0 has accomplished thus far?
Also, who would you suggest we speak to that would satisfy the oversight requirements you envision?
BT, thanks for your reply. Also kudos to you, @Amplify, and others who respond consistently and with civility.
The answers to your questions I have detailed the past week in the AIP on future Working Groups. (Unsure of its title at the moment, but anyone reading probably knows it and it’s linked above I believe).
I’d be curious to know the opinions of US-based lawyers, particularly specializing in securities or ethics. Again though, being legal and being ethical and having proper neutral 3rd-party oversight are totally different things.
FTX operated in the Caymans with lots of lawyers and stated good intentions too. US regulators seem unimpressed. And just try to tell the SEC that you want to list a public company with no outside accounting or audits and it’s OK because if shareholders feel rugged they can just vote a new board in…eventually…maybe… but hey so far so good so what’s the issue?
My opinion on WG0 accomplishments thus far is highly favorable and totally irrelevant. My issue isn’t with any persons or results thus far, it’s with copying the most flawed, inefficient and prone to corruption IRL electoral systems known and without any legitimate neutral oversight as detailed clearly in the related thread.
Thank you @br00no, I very much appreciate being able to have substantive discussions with knowledgeable people about the future of the DAO.
We did speak with US-based attorneys who specialize in the financial side of things. Risk mitigation is always a top priority for any DAO managing a treasury this size and we have done everything possible to factor in these considerations as it relates to the WG guidelines on our path towards further decentralization.
Once this passes I’m happy to support efforts to establish clear and neutral oversight for the DAO as part of the Ape Assembly – it was one of the key roles we saw that body addressing in the form of an Ethics Committee. Importantly a body devoid from the challenges of token-based voting systems.
I think we generally agree other than IMO it’s disingenuously late to propose installing oversight after systems have been enshrined - and power consolidated.
Plus people are very disinclined to take corrective action, or even speak or vote in favor of it, against established structures and power players.
And there isn’t even clarity on what the purpose or focus of the DAO even is, or where crucial info should be presented and focused. Not among all Stewards, much less the DAO at large.
We can proceed full-tilt and deal with consequences after the wheels are already falling off, and it could turn out fantastic despite these approaches never working IRL, but that’s not the ideal approach much less setting a good example as a leading name in the space.
Attempting to bypass the token-based voting system can have negative consequences. It can result in the absence of regular delegates and actively involved holders who typically participate in discussions. Instead, the conversation is left to whoever happens to be present.
I have wasted three days because I will have to start a new thread to have focused and detailed conversations. The initial half of this thread had productive discussions, but it has now regressed to a similar pattern as other discussions. Some claim that working groups are essential for establishing projects without direct token holder and delegate oversight. However, this approach is terrible, and most individuals were not informed of this fact during Twitter spaces or WG conferences.
As I share my thoughts, my audience is appropriately targeted. I urge you to adjust course and review my official statement on the dysfunctional working group structure & embedded Ape Assembly.
Dear Community Members,
I’d like to express my concerns regarding the proposed Ape Assembly and suggest an alternative solution. The Ape Assembly proposal is both wasteful and uncertain, with its election and steward model being unsuitable for the primarily secretarial roles. Moreover, it might negatively impact the effectiveness of the existing AIP process.
Instead, let’s focus on distributing ApeCoin to qualified communities to empower their local economies. This would support small businesses, create community storefronts, and establish multi-sig wallets for participating in DAO voting, delegate voting, and self-governing community events and e-commerce stores.
I encourage everyone to vote against the Ape Assembly proposal and support the smaller Community Forum Moderators proposal. This alternative offers a more focused and efficient approach to community engagement. To improve it further, I suggest:
Expanding the proposal to cover essential services.
Granting oversight to the existing Special Council for transparency and accountability.
Allocating a budget of 25,000 ApeCoin monthly for hiring moderators from within the community.
By adopting these recommendations, we can build a more sustainable and effective community support system.
Thank you for considering these points. Let’s work together to make the right decision for our community.
Because of the way this thread has devolved, ill have to start a new one to have my idea fairly evaluated. This has devolved into me losing days of time. I and many others were affected by delays for a year. This all needs simplified. It needs evaluated immediately because my approach will work.
Thanks so much for your reply. I really appreciate your perspective.
And sorry @0xSword, not looking to overtake your thread, but since you said you were going to start another one anyway, I wanted to reply to br00no because I think they’re good questions.
Regarding what the DAO is fundamentally about, the way it is currently set up with the Foundation, it is a grants DAO. That is it’s current purpose and focus, and the limitations come from that. But I think that is separate from what the DAO could be. If the community has the desire, it could, through the proposal process, pass community led initiatives that allow it to be more. I don’t think the two options are mutually exclusive, and the DAO can evolve over time to meet the changing needs of the community. I believe when the Stewards are sharing their perspective, they’re talking about two different things, what the DAO is currently is vs what it could be.
The reason we’re proposing a working group structure is because the community approved WG0, through the passage of AIP-196, to determine and transition all functions that don’t explicitly require a Cayman foundation administrator to the DAO. WG0 was also tasked with proposing future Working group guidelines and objectives via AIP that will delegate all WG0 responsibilities to said working groups.
There’s a lot more I could say, but I tend to be long winded and don’t want to take over Sword’s thread. But I’d like you to know, I do really love the idea of an Ethics Committee. I think ethical oversight is something that is lacking, not just in our DAO, but in the Web3 space in general.
Thanks again for your questions, and once again, sorry Sword for taking your thread in a different direction. I look forward to your reply to my questions about your proposal.
The foundation is streamlined for issuing grants @adventurousape but it’s not the DAO. I hoped you would be effective early oversight within WG0, including their methods & integrations. Unfortunately they’ve overstepped, as they only were mandated for the RFP, and then to make suggestions a potential structure.
I believe that money and resources for legal, as well as the stewards efforts in all areas, were based around integrating the steward election model. And I believe that it was the only option explored in legal. And that is wrong. It’s self-serving and incomprehensive, already broke precendence with an SC one month extension, and overall someone needs to say “this is wrong.”
Someone, somewhere, said “this will get ur names in Smithsonian.” No here’s the Smithsonian level art.
AA, thanks for saying so re: Ethics Committee, and for your reply.
Unfortunately to institute these Charters and highly-paid layers of power before an Ethics Committee or neutral 3rd-party offering a similar oversight and opinion, is practically a waste of time.
Your topic will be moving to the AIP Draft phase in less than 24 hours. Are you content with the feedback received or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?
If we do not hear from you within 48 hours after your topic closes, your topic will be moved straight to the AIP Draft process.
Instead of going back and forth on this, I again would implore you to please write an AIP to engage a third party auditor to audit not only the Working Groups, but the entirety of our DAO because you seem to think it’s a systemic issue.