Profile of buuvei in ApeCoin

Posts by buuvei

• AIP-553: ApeCoin DAO Reporting RESET by buuvei - No Role
  Posted on: Nov. 3, 2024, 10:08 p.m.
  Content: Definite yes for transparency.
  Likes: 6 Replies: 0
  Likers: AaronHaber, ernestlee, MBAMemo, Lanzer, Cryptosheep, MonkeyMike.eth
  No replies yet.
• AIP-540: Ape Shoes: An affordable and comfortable approach for ROI within the DAO by buuvei - No Role
  Posted on: Sept. 29, 2024, 4:57 a.m.
  Content: Vibing with the way it looks man. If you could create a sample shoe and share would be great also.
  Likes: 3 Replies: 0
  Likers: Evil, ernestlee, Benny
  No replies yet.
• Shout it out now! by buuvei - No Role
  Posted on: Sept. 26, 2024, 8:54 a.m.
  Content: In your AIP for WGs, any reason this is not included?
  Likes: 1 Replies: 0
  Likers: CraniumCalvin
  No replies yet.
• Shout it out now! by buuvei - No Role
  Posted on: Sept. 26, 2024, 3:43 a.m.
  Content: Remember when I proposed to Elect a Leader of the DAO? Problem is that all these working groups and SC are like trains without a head :steam_locomotive: There needs to be a handover, delegation, management, contact person who also leads the grand Vision. The word Decentralized is not just black or white if we create a meaningful solution.
  Likes: 3 Replies: 2
  Likers: likkee.eth, CraniumCalvin, bigbull
  Replies:

  • SmartAPE: buuvei: Remember when I proposed to Elect a Leader of the DAO? Remember when I tried to fire the entire Special Council? I got banned over the 0xPolygon fiasco before I could follow through with it. Good times. lol AIP-359: Special Council Vote of No Confidence
  • CraniumCalvin: Hi all, @likkee.eth although I do somewhat agree, and this could be a great way to understand who really has the best interest of the DAO in mind. I also agree with @SmartAPE that we do have a pretty good idea of the issues we face, and with so much broken, I believe we are likely better off proposing a comprehensive plan for a complete overhaul of the current structure. I feel one question is. Does the SC etc even work as a solution to how a larger DAO can run successfully? If not then the issues they currently have would be irrelevant, and the ‘whistleblower’ approach would serve more as a “who wants to be on the right side of history”. One thing that is crucial, is the understanding of exactly what the day to day is for the SC. For example, do they deal with, Legal requirements Accounting These are of course areas that can’t be ignored, and would need careful consideration as to find replacements for these roles. External contracts likely makes sense, if this isn’t something already in place. buuvei: Remember when I proposed to Elect a Leader of the DAO? This is always a tough one, like you say, decentralisation is not black and white. I do feel that an element of centralisation in the early stages of the DAO is a sensible move, as this helps steer the ship. But as mentioned a lot this week, transparency and accountability are crucial. SmartAPE: Remember when I tried to fire the entire Special Council? I got banned over the 0xPolygon fiasco before I could follow through with it. Good times. This doesn’t seem very DAO like . Although I don’t have the time to read through that entire thread today, I commend you for your ability to stand up. You also strike me as someone similar to myself, that doesn’t mince their words, and I like that. We need more of that. Overall, I feel that we 100% need a redesign of the structure. Any input from current inside positions would be helpful, but if they don’t want to come forward then we can design it regardless. Either way this is an uphill battle. Most things that need to be done undermine the power of the larger token holders and people currently receiving large salaries. The way I believe we succeed is with mutually beneficial changes. This industry, like all others is runs on clout, and for that reason we do need the whales and larger personalities. Everyone has a role. So how do we design a structure that respects every role? I believe there is a compromise. After all, without change the DAO will slowly die, and that benefits no one. The benefit we now have is lots of discussions are currently taking place around this matter. I am mainly AFK today, but looking forward to continued conversation with you all.
• The phase after Admin Review by buuvei - No Role
  Posted on: Sept. 13, 2024, 4:06 a.m.
  Content: What you wrote are pretty important steps in our DAO.
  Likes: 2 Replies: 0
  Likers: furiousanger, LOR3LORD
  No replies yet.
• Move Apestake staking protocol to Apechain by buuvei - No Role
  Posted on: Sept. 6, 2024, 5:56 a.m.
  Content: Sandbox DAO required this in the beginning. In order to start voting, you must delegate to someone or yourself. The advantage to this is, then you can see all voting power wallets. Currently, on delegate apecoin DAO website, you can only see how much delegated and not how much is in wallet or staked for delegates.
  Likes: 2 Replies: 0
  Likers: bigbull, SmartAPE
  No replies yet.
• The phase after Admin Review by buuvei - No Role
  Posted on: Sept. 5, 2024, 8:18 p.m.
  Content: Thing is, even if we shorten the before phase, the AIP could just sit in this dark phase after admin review for months without any update on what is happening or delaying. What’s the point of 1 month admin review if AIP won’t go up to vote after that. DAO should propose and DAO should vote to pass AIP or not, instead of invisible people deciding.
  Likes: 0 Replies: 0
  No likes yet.
  No replies yet.
• The phase after Admin Review by buuvei - No Role
  Posted on: Sept. 1, 2024, 7:36 p.m.
  Content: @BoredApeG @Hazel @Airvey @mo_ezz 14 @Waabam Let me see if tagging works here, will try X next.
  Likes: 2 Replies: 1
  Likers: likkee.eth, furiousanger
  Replies:

  • furiousanger: You need a special access pass to speak with our elected special council members. Or so it would seem. What happened to the opportunity to put questions to them we use to have? Radio silence is not a good look always - as it only takes 30 seconds to write a quick reply - no one’s that busy right?
• The phase after Admin Review by buuvei - No Role
  Posted on: Aug. 31, 2024, 8:38 p.m.
  Content: We not millionaires that can purchase and outvote the founding wallets. Even so, that standard should be same for elections, during my run, top voted got 3 M in two wallets by friend, which sold afterwards. Lastly, it does not answer any of the technical and reporting transparency questions I asked.
  Likes: 5 Replies: 0
  Likers: LOR3LORD, SmartAPE, likkee.eth, DavidW, furiousanger
  No replies yet.
• The phase after Admin Review by buuvei - No Role
  Posted on: Aug. 30, 2024, 11:39 a.m.
  Content: For Clarity: What is the phase after the 1 month admin review called? What is the max number of days the AIP sits in that phase? Is the duration to sit in this phase unknown? Who picks which AIP goes to vote from the ones in this phase? If it’s SC, can we get data on which SC picked how many and which during this year? If it’s not picked for 1 month plus, can we get the reasons why? Can we make this phase public so authors know the progress? If SC had 1 month to review the AIP in admin review, what is taking so long? (and no, the answer is not the current AIPs in pipeline) Can we get data on which SC reviewed how many AIPs during admin review? How can we save time on this phase and reduce the number of days? How can we give accountability to this unknown phase? How to make the current SC actions more transparent?
  Likes: 6 Replies: 1
  Likers: furiousanger, bigbull, SmartAPE, penguinpecker, DavidW, adventurousape
  Replies:

  • bigbull: buuvei: What is the phase after the 1 month admin review called? What is the max number of days the AIP sits in that phase? Is the duration to sit in this phase unknown? Who picks which AIP goes to vote from the ones in this phase? If it’s SC, can we get data on which SC picked how many and which during this year? If it’s not picked for 1 month plus, can we get the reasons why? Can we make this phase public so authors know the progress? If SC had 1 month to review the AIP in admin review, what is taking so long? (and no, the answer is not the current AIPs in pipeline) Can we get data on which SC reviewed how many AIPs during admin review? How can we save time on this phase and reduce the number of days? How can we give accountability to this unknown phase? How to make the current SC actions more transparent? All I can say is I would like to see: 1.The earlier phases more automated, so that the FAC resources can be used on the decision making versus basic process work. I would like to have more requirements BEFORE an AIP idea gets a number. Arbitrum and ENS both have system to screen out earlier in the process so those that go to vote are likely to have significant support from voters (though they may not pass).