Credible effective oversight is absolutely crucial, no matter my opinion.
Also reporting is not oversight, especially when it’s self-reporting.
“Essential Services” includes proper oversight.
The ApeCoin.com “About” and “Governance” pages contain zero instances of “audit” and a single instance of “oversight”:
“A special council on the APE Foundation (the DAO’s “Board”) provides, at the behest of the ApeCoin DAO members, oversight of the Foundation administrators.”
Where can we see details of how that “oversight” is done, how it is defined, how often, and by whom?
In sharp contrast, “AIP” appears 115 times on the “Governance” page alone, yet there’s a lot of talk about changing and circumventing the existing AIP process.
Public companies don’t self-report to shareholders. They have a neutral, respected in the field and known, 3rd-party accountant prepare the figures and a totally different, respected in the field and known, neutral 3rd-party auditor audit those figures AND offer opinions stated in simple English on where dangers lie. These are mailed to shareholders quarterly and publicly available on official sites to anyone 24/7.
Consider the comments by Horizen on Apestake.io - in bold red letters, to their credit - about the dangers and possibilities of hacks, losing staked $APE if selling a connected NFT, etc. even though the smart contracts are audited by…yes… neutral and expert 3rd-parties.
Nobody would dare to have seriously suggested when staking was voted on that we skip proper oversight and auditing of Apestake, then just vote for a new dev team or institute safeguards after something bad happens, yet that’s the best we can do for all these new Working Group Charters?
Who is the Foundation’s auditor, and where can we all see the latest audit and the auditor’s comments, along with who is getting paid how much and from how many paid activities, how often, and for how long?
Maybe it exists. I’ve never heard about it, nor can I find it on the Foundation’s site.
As I read it, the About page states the Foundation or its Administrators are tasked to action or facilitate the will of the community. I’d argue that does include hiring, even if that means appointing a neutral and expert 3rd party to help with doing so, or whatever else is legally allowed, when tasked to do so by will of the community.
Wasn’t Horizen effectively hired to actualize Apestake.io?
My emphasis added:
“The Foundation consists of an administrative Board, which exists solely to oversee the decisions of the ApeCoin DAO, as well as a third party project management team in charge of ensuring ApeCoin DAO decisions are implemented.”
“The Foundation is responsible for the day-to-day administration, bookkeeping, project management, and other tasks that ensure the ApeCoin DAO community’s ideas have the support they need to become a reality.”