Profile of secengjeff in ApeCoin
Posts by secengjeff
-
Slash the BAYC/MAYC/BAKC Staking Pools
by secengjeff - No Role
Posted on: Nov. 17, 2023, 5:05 p.m.
Content: Total tangent but I actually agree re: little reason for this token to exist at the present time. I think that can and should change if the DAO is able to do smart and ambitious things with its treasury.
Likes: 3
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Slash the BAYC/MAYC/BAKC Staking Pools
by secengjeff - No Role
Posted on: Nov. 17, 2023, 4:59 p.m.
Content: I’m aligned with remove all staking. We as the DAO should not be concerned with the token’s price as it pertains or decision making. I want to stay very far away from anything that could be perceived as manipulation or a securities offering.
Removing the NFT pools only is IMO weird and seems like a retaliatory proposal given Gerry’s idea to remove the $APE only pool.
Likes: 1
Replies: 2
Replies:
- Gerry: secengjeff:
Removing the NFT pools only is IMO weird and seems like a retaliatory proposal given Gerry’s idea to remove the $APE only pool.
I’m encouraged that Kodama felt comfortable putting up an idea so quickly that wasn’t a fully fleshed out AIP. We need more of this.
The notion that an Idea must be a fully thought out and ready to present proposal is one we need to move past if we wish to encourage more participation.
- Fuego: kodama:
it gives some utility to ApeCoin
Staking is not a utility, it is a Zero-Sum game.
kodama:
c) remove the BAYC/MAYC/BAKC Staking Pools and give everything back to the treasury
This is the best option but it has to be done to all pools including the $APE only staking pool.
There has never in the history of crypto (I’ve been in crypto since 2017 and BTC since 2015) been a successful staking protocol. They all turn to sh*t and fail sooner or later. It is not a utility and only creates more sell pressure. Just look at the price of $APE.
We should eliminate all staking pools and return the ApeCoin from all pools back to the treasury.
secengjeff:
Demand for $APE driven by hopes of staking to create more $APE is not healthy demand and does little for token’s utility.
100%. This is not utility, it is simply ponzinomics.
Sheftali:
It’s also my belief that the greatest utility for $APE will come from Otherside
I don’t fully believe that Otherside will have any positive effect on ApeCoin. IMO Otherside is just another delusional idea that won’t have many users and the economy will not be what people believe it will be. It may have a few short term pumps every time there is a new announcement but in the end the market will market and it will dump again.
kodama:
Staking is def not a great utility, not sure if you can even call it utility…
Thank you. I hope we can all agree on this.
secengjeff:
I’m aligned with remove all staking.
The best option is to eliminate all staking. IMO it should have never been built in the first place. The only winner here was Horizen Labs, who couldn’t even add basic functions such as compound or claimAll buttons.
FrankNFT:
and redistribute the token of that one to the BAYC/MAYC/BAKC we are a club are we not?
I’m of the opinion that we as a club already got enough free tokens with the airdrop, which for some of us resulted in >$200k free money per Ape and >$40k per mutant. Staking is only creating more sell pressure.
-
Slash the BAYC/MAYC/BAKC Staking Pools
by secengjeff - No Role
Posted on: Nov. 17, 2023, 10:24 a.m.
Content: Demand for $APE driven by hopes of staking to create more $APE is not healthy demand and does little for token’s utility.
Likes: 1
Replies: 2
No likes yet.
Replies:
- kodama: Staking is def not a great utility, not sure if you can even call it utility… but it is what it is atm.
So we have to make the best out of it and either:
-cut staking completely
-reduce/remove the NFT pools for the reasons listed above
Leaving everything as is, is obv an option as well… and unfortunately, what will happen most likely.
- Fuego: kodama:
it gives some utility to ApeCoin
Staking is not a utility, it is a Zero-Sum game.
kodama:
c) remove the BAYC/MAYC/BAKC Staking Pools and give everything back to the treasury
This is the best option but it has to be done to all pools including the $APE only staking pool.
There has never in the history of crypto (I’ve been in crypto since 2017 and BTC since 2015) been a successful staking protocol. They all turn to sh*t and fail sooner or later. It is not a utility and only creates more sell pressure. Just look at the price of $APE.
We should eliminate all staking pools and return the ApeCoin from all pools back to the treasury.
secengjeff:
Demand for $APE driven by hopes of staking to create more $APE is not healthy demand and does little for token’s utility.
100%. This is not utility, it is simply ponzinomics.
Sheftali:
It’s also my belief that the greatest utility for $APE will come from Otherside
I don’t fully believe that Otherside will have any positive effect on ApeCoin. IMO Otherside is just another delusional idea that won’t have many users and the economy will not be what people believe it will be. It may have a few short term pumps every time there is a new announcement but in the end the market will market and it will dump again.
kodama:
Staking is def not a great utility, not sure if you can even call it utility…
Thank you. I hope we can all agree on this.
secengjeff:
I’m aligned with remove all staking.
The best option is to eliminate all staking. IMO it should have never been built in the first place. The only winner here was Horizen Labs, who couldn’t even add basic functions such as compound or claimAll buttons.
FrankNFT:
and redistribute the token of that one to the BAYC/MAYC/BAKC we are a club are we not?
I’m of the opinion that we as a club already got enough free tokens with the airdrop, which for some of us resulted in >$200k free money per Ape and >$40k per mutant. Staking is only creating more sell pressure.
-
Slash the ApeCoin Only Staking Pool
by secengjeff - No Role
Posted on: Nov. 15, 2023, 12:49 p.m.
Content: My earlier statement isn’t an opinion. It is a proven fact that ( 1 ) the tokens were originally distributed to only BAYC/MAYC + BAKC holders; ( 2 ) people who later acquired more tokens want it to be something different from what was implied in the origin story and distribution strategy; and ( 3 ) staking rewards are inflationary and the process of staking in the ApeCoin context creates zero value. I’m happy to continue defending these points with data.
My opinion is that the ApeCoin only staking pool should be eliminated because it serves no purpose other than to give more ApeCoin to people who bought ApeCoin. Regardless of what you think about inclusion and the mission of the DAO it’s just silly to intentionally inflate the token like this. If we can’t agree on that point my second preference would be to eliminate all staking and be done with this topic. My hypothesis is that if we actually eliminated all staking that the token would become more valuable than what you could achieve through staking.
Likes: 1
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Slash the ApeCoin Only Staking Pool
by secengjeff - No Role
Posted on: Nov. 15, 2023, 12:17 p.m.
Content: The ApeCoin pool serves literally zero purpose except to give more coin to people who already have coin. No value is being created by any of the pools other than to entice speculation by locking up some of the float. This is worthless to the community in the long run and only serves to hasten the token’s decline in value.
ApeCoin was originally distributed to BAYC and MAYC holders (plus Yuga insiders) only. This implies that ApeCoin was created as a benefit for the holders of those NFTs, which is also the reason that more lucrative BAYC/MAYC/BAKC staking pools exist.
The talking point of “not the BAYC DAO” was invented by later ApeCoin holders in an effort to steer the DAO and its treasury onto other or perhaps broader ambitions, but it neglects the realities of the DAO’s origin story.
Likes: 1
Replies: 2
Replies:
- kodama: better to agree to disagree. We have completely opposite opinions.
- drdavecoin: I believe the ApeCoin DAO is about inclusion and not exclusion and therefore your ideas I find pretty uncomfortable. All you will do is isolate non-ape holders from the DAO and from earning $APE rewards in favour of ape holders. That sounds like a capitalism to me, not a democracy.
-
AIP-380: Swamp Gaming: Let’s pave the road to onboard millions of gamers
by secengjeff - No Role
Posted on: Nov. 14, 2023, 9:33 p.m.
Content: Would it be more appropriate to say $ 2 . 5 MM acquisition + $ 10 . 1 MM grant? AFAIK, the DAO does not want to directly operate businesses so this would be funding that goes from the DAO to some entity (even if it’s one that we have to create for that purpose).
On the latter point, the DAO can license its name without regard for what stake it owns (e.g. 40 % share owned by the DAO or an affiliated entity and you continue to operate it with 60 % ownership).
In the physical realm you’ll typically see VCs/PEs who make minority investments to ensure that the founders retain responsibility and motivation (“skin in the game”) to continue operating the company OR a company who does a full acquisition but already has the infrastructure to operate that business or who plans to fold it into an existing business. The DAO has none of that.
Likes: 3
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
AIP-380: Swamp Gaming: Let’s pave the road to onboard millions of gamers
by secengjeff - No Role
Posted on: Nov. 14, 2023, 8:18 p.m.
Content: Thanks, I missed that slide somehow. It looks like you’re valuing the company at 10 x revenue or 40 x earnings? Can you point to any comps that help rationalize this valuation?
Generally, I like the idea of the DAO investing the treasury and have been socializing the launch of a VC arm. Whether this gets funded by a VC arm or directly by the DAO, IMO, it should be a minority investment. I would not want to see the DAO completely buying out a company (or even taking a majority stake).
Likes: 1
Replies: 2
Replies:
- MemeBrains: secengjeff:
It looks like you’re valuing the company
fyi I have nothing to do with this AIP nor the team whatsoever, my first time learning about them was this week while reading the AIP, and 8Delegate from 8DAO has not decided whether or not it’s supporting it yet or not, so your question I think is directed at @TFG
I just read your question and happened to have just seen their slide 6 figures from the deck so thought to share with you, just helping a fellow community member out is all
- TFG: Hey Jeff, thank you for joining this conversation!
To address your initial question – we haven’t valued the company at $12.6 million. We are actually seeking an acquisition for $2.5 million. The additional funding is intended to support the company’s operations for a minimum of 5 years, with at least $1.8 million allocated.
Regarding your second question about making a minor investment vs acquisition, we are going the acquisition route because it offers us the opportunity to completely rebrand the company under the ApeCoin DAO and Yuga-friendly IP - Swamp Gaming.
In my opinion, this approach allows us to effectively reshape the narrative over the next several years. If we were to continue operating under the Kungarna brand with only a “powered by” ApeCoin DAO association, it could limit our scalability and hinder our ability to achieve our ultimate goals.
Let me know if you have any other questions!
-
AIP-380: Swamp Gaming: Let’s pave the road to onboard millions of gamers
by secengjeff - No Role
Posted on: Nov. 14, 2023, 8 p.m.
Content: Are you asking the DAO to buy your company? Can you share financial metrics that help us understand your $ 12 . 6 MM USD valuation?
Likes: 2
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Slash the ApeCoin Only Staking Pool
by secengjeff - No Role
Posted on: Nov. 14, 2023, 7:53 p.m.
Content: 100 % support the elimination of the $APE only pool (if we’re actually able/allowed to do that?)
There is a major comms issue with people thinking the DAO is only for Apes.
I don’t think this is strictly true, at least not historically. The original $APE drop was to BAYC/MAYC holders and the larger staking pools are set aside for BAYC and MAYC. We can and should draw a distinction between who the “DAO is for” (all $APE holders) and what we do with the treasury (IMO, drive meaningful utility to ApeCoin and BAYC/MAYC holders). To say this more bluntly, we should not be taking any actions that steer tokens toward people/organizations simply because they hold some amount of $APE and/or participate in the DAO.
With regard to the $APE pool: The existence of this pool is purely inflationary and is one of the many factors that depresses the token’s value. That is also true of the BAYC etc. pools but at least those serve a particular purpose (whether you agree with or like that purpose) of providing a benefit to BAYC/MAYC/BAKC hodlers.
With regard to funding pools: We should not discuss this without getting the DAO’s lawyers to opine on whether that would constitute a securities offering. We cannot turn back time but we can avoid taking further actions that create exposure for the DAO and its officers.
Likes: 5
Replies: 2
Replies:
- kodama: So you say the ApeCoin only pool is purely inflationary and the NFT pools at least provide a benefit to holders? LOL
It is the ApeCoin DAO and not the BAYC DAO - so the staking should benefit ApeCoin holders first and then maybe the NFT holders as well.
The NFT pools should be stopped imo and we should focus on several long-term and more structured ApeCoin pools.
- drdavecoin: I completely disagree with this and all you will do is make non-apes feel unwelcome to hold $APE if you only favour pool rewards to apes. Apes already get more favourable returns if you stake your ape. $APE is for everyone, not just apes and those who stake their $APE should be entitled to the pool rewards regardless if they hold an ape in their wallet or not.
-
AIP-373: Boring Security - Runnin’ It Back
by secengjeff - No Role
Posted on: Nov. 14, 2023, 7:33 p.m.
Content: Have you considered expanding into offensive security of systemically important infrastructure (e.g. reviewing and pentesting staking contracts?)
Likes: 5
Replies: 1
Replies:
- Feld: We have, and we wanted to partner with certain vendors in the space to provide that work on our behalf. However, our focus is on education and brand building.
Having something with “Security” in the name though automatically implies some kind of auditing service, so we’ve worked to find something in that realm, but its low on the priority list at the moment.
