My thoughts on how we fix the ApeCoin DAO.
Today I put out a post on X - x.com
This post was inspired by the conversation had in the ‘Coffee w/Captain’ Spaces yesterday. Some fantastic points we highlighted, so I wanted give my thoughts on these matters, along with some potential solutions.
This is very much a work in progress, and the aim here is to find like minded people that feel the same, and want to assist with building a solid plan. The way I see it is, many heads are better than 1 .
Below are the main points discussed, it would also be great if anyone would like to engage and/or help spread the word by sharing the X post linked above.
The main debate right now seems to be whether to disband all councils and working groups or not. I think it’s clear to all that there are issues. I want to start by making it clear that I will NOT play the blame game, except to say that this is on ALL of us. Like it or not, we got what we voted for.
The aim of this post is to provide my insight into the problems we face and the potential solutions. Solutions are how we move forward, not blame.
Why are we here?
A point made, that I feel is very relevant. What is the purpose of the DAO?
This is so important. I believe that the purpose of a DAO is for like minded people to come together and align around a particular goal.
So what is the goal of the ApeCoin DAO? I feel this is the most important thing we need to decided on, if we have no purposeful cause, then why are we here? There are a few things that the DAO seems to be focused on right now.
Grant programme
The growth of the ApeCoin ecosystem
ApeChain
I feel this could easily be turned into one main mission statement. Here is my attempt at that.
The ApeCoin DAO mission is to foster the growth and development of the ApeCoin ecosystem, by nurturing ApeChain as a thriving blockchain, and by empowering individuals and projects through a grant programme to contribute to this vision.
The problems we face.
How should the DAO be run? and Should all working groups, councils etc be removed?
This is a tough one, the fine line between decentralisation and centralisation. It was pointed out many times that this is not a traditional organisation. There is no board, no one is in charge, so in that case we ALL are.
Yes, that is at it’s core the vision of a DAO. But I am going to throw a spanner in the works, Human Nature. Often overlooked, human nature is present in every aspect of life, and should not be ignored, especially in web 3 where we aim to change the status quo of business, finance and community.
“All societies, regardless of their political systems, inevitably develop a hierarchical structure” (George Orwell, 1984 ).
This may be fiction, but I believe there is truth in it. There will always be people who wish to lead, and people who wish to follow. My thoughts are also inspired by Dunbar’s Number Theory.
Dunbar’s Number Theory is essentially the idea that you can only have a meaningful relationship with 150 people. When you go beyond this point fragmentation starts to occur. The more people that join a community, the less they know one another; the less they trust one another. This is where I believe that true decentralisation starts to break down, and IMO this is one of the main problems the ApeCoin DAO faces.
As an advocate for decentralisation, it pains me to admit that human nature, in its current form at least, cannot allow for decentralisation at scale. The human element is the stumbling block.
So I propose that we DO need a steward. A group, or even better, groups that help to steer the ship. This could even be a temporary measure, and one day maybe the DAO can succeed in a truly decentralised way. We may not have mastered DAOs yet, and we may not know exactly what works, and what doesn’t. But, we have thousands of years of history that teach us the successes and failures of our ancestors.
IMO the idea of a ‘Special Council’ wasn’t a bad one, it was sensible solution to the scalability issue. The problem is, we designed from what we knew, and ended up with a far too centralised hierarchical structure.
So how do we fix this?
Compensation Structure: One of the biggest talking points was the compensation structure. Salaried pay in any start up can be a dangerous path, especially when there is no consistent revenue stream. This was our first mistake. As pointed out by a few people, payment for contributions to the DAO should be KPI based.
I agree and think that retrospective pay based on performance both compensates work, and protects the DAO in the event of under performance. Maybe a % of DAO revenue could be used?
Transparency: One of the cornerstones of decentralisation. This IMO is crucial, and I think everything should be recorded. Every single aspect of the DAO should be transparent. But, it was pointed out yesterday that there are times where NDAs are used. Part of me wants to point out that you can’t have your cake, and eat it. We either accept an element of centralisation or we don’t.
I am not sure of the solution to this, but it 100 % should be a talking point.
Accountability: Anyone contributing to the DAO should be held accountable for their actions. It was pointed out yesterday that there are provisions in place to propose the removal of any elected official at any time. It’s all good and well to expect someone to be held accountable. But, if we as a DAO do not exercise our right to hold them accountable then that is on us.
I also want to point out that for this to work, we need full transparency. We can’t fix what we don’t know.
Additional thoughts.
These are all valid points raised by people in the community, but I also believe that we need to dig deeper.
Voter Apathy, and overall participation in the DAO is at an all time low, and IMO will only get worse. We need to incentivise wider spread participation from the community. How do we do that?
Well, we need to fix the problems mentioned above, thats a given. But (I know, broken record!) the voting structure needs fixing. This is IMO the biggest contributor to voter apathy. I wont go into detail as I have detailed my ideas in my pinned post on X, and will post a more detailed explanation separately in this topic ASAP.
Essentially I feel we need to remove the 1 token = 1 vote system. It has never worked, and will only ever contribute to the centralisation the DAO. You should NOT be able to buy votes!
As noted in yesterdays space - We find our selves in a place where most proposals, or at least the ones that pass, are often based on popularity rather than merit. We need to open our minds, and objectively discuss what is best for the DAO, not what is popular. I have many other ideas about the overall DAO structure, but I will leave those for another day.
Final thoughts.
It has been quite rightly stated that any ideas should be raised via a proposal in the DAO. I just wanted to clear up why I haven’t done that. I am incredibly passionate about the ApeCoin ecosystem, and want it to succeed. I believe that my experience with designing token based ecosystems, and passion for blockchain based voting structures, puts me in a position where I feel I can help steer the DAO in the right direction.
But sadly I am a 1 man band, I do not have the time or ability to execute all of the ideas mentioned on my own. But, I do want to help in anyway that I can! This is also not a full proof plan, and it needs work. I am a true believer that the answer lies in more than 1 brain. We need a diverse range of perspectives and ideas, ultimately leading to more thoughtful and well-rounded plans.
Let’s work together to make ApeCoin DAO a success (I so almost said “Great Again” :sweat_smile:).
If you managed to make it this far, then thank you for taking the time to read. Your input is always welcome, so please let me know your thoughts.
The post discusses the issues faced by the ApeCoin DAO and proposes solutions to address them, such as defining the DAO's mission, restructuring compensation, enhancing transparency, and increasing voter engagement. The author emphasizes the need for collaborative effort and suggests the formation of a stewardship group to steer the DAO in the right direction.
SmartAPE: CraniumCalvin:
I feel this could easily be turned into one main mission statement. Here is my attempt at that.
lol! We tried that already. Hilariously, the DAO voted it down
btw kudos for trotting out Dunbar. Well done.
CraniumCalvin:
So I propose that we DO need a steward. A group, or even better, groups that help to steer the ship. This could even be a temporary measure, and one day maybe the DAO can succeed in a truly decentralised way. We may not have mastered DAOs yet, and we may not know exactly what works, and what doesn’t. But, we have thousands of years of history that teach us the successes and failures of our ancestors.
Agreed. And that was the impetus for my originally adding an Oversight Chair to my proposal AIP-466: Proposal To Close Non-Essential Working Groups
CraniumCalvin:
IMO the idea of a ‘Special Council’ wasn’t a bad one, it was sensible solution to the scalability issue. The problem is, we designed from what we knew, and ended up with a far too centralised hierarchical structure.
It’s a lot more insidious than that, but I’d rather not go there - again.
Anyway, I agree with the entirety of your post because, even though you’re new around here, it appears as if you have aptly captured the challenges of the DAO in a format that has allowed you to formulate an understanding of the challenges and proposed remedies.
For the record, for the longest time, I have repeatedly advocated that the only way to “fix” the DAO was to dissolve it and start from scratch. Some people thought it was too radical and that I was mad. Here we are.
DavidW: CraniumCalvin:
Dunbar’s Number Theory is essentially the idea that you can only have a meaningful relationship with 150 people. When you go beyond this point fragmentation starts to occur. The more people that join a community, the less they know one another; the less they trust one another.
I applaud your positive and thoughtful post. I’m currently doing research in exactly this field - community cohesivenss in DAOs - and part of that is definitely size. As you mentioned, there are a number of factors that go into group trust and collective effervescence. I agree that, in DAOs, this is highly related to decentralized governance, transparency. and (perceived) accountability. Anyway, I enjoyed what you wrote and I’d love to connect via DM and chat about it if you’re willing.
CraniumCalvin:
I feel this could easily be turned into one main mission statement. Here is my …
CraniumCalvin:
I feel this could easily be turned into one main mission statement. Here is my attempt at that.
lol! We tried that already. Hilariously, the DAO voted it down :rofl:
btw kudos for trotting out Dunbar. Well done.
CraniumCalvin:
So I propose that we DO need a steward. A group, or even better, groups that help to steer the ship. This could even be a temporary measure, and one day maybe the DAO can succeed in a truly decentralised way. We may not have mastered DAOs yet, and we may not know exactly what works, and what doesn’t. But, we have thousands of years of history that teach us the successes and failures of our ancestors.
Agreed. And that was the impetus for my originally adding an Oversight Chair to my proposal AIP- 466 : Proposal To Close Non-Essential Working Groups
CraniumCalvin:
IMO the idea of a ‘Special Council’ wasn’t a bad one, it was sensible solution to the scalability issue. The problem is, we designed from what we knew, and ended up with a far too centralised hierarchical structure.
It’s a lot more insidious than that, but I’d rather not go there - again.
Anyway, I agree with the entirety of your post because, even though you’re new around here, it appears as if you have aptly captured the challenges of the DAO in a format that has allowed you to formulate an understanding of the challenges and proposed remedies.
For the record, for the longest time, I have repeatedly advocated that the only way to “fix” the DAO was to dissolve it and start from scratch. Some people thought it was too radical and that I was mad. Here we are.
GM GM SmartAPE,
Firstly thank you for taking the time to read and reply.
As you mentioned I am new …
GM GM SmartAPE,
Firstly thank you for taking the time to read and reply.
As you mentioned I am new to entering the DAO on a more active basis. I have been around since day 1 as an observer. But have now decided to actually pursue a more active role, and hope to stick around and get involved in some more discussions in here. I will make sure to check out your proposals too.
I cannot understand why a mission statement would be turned down, I just checked out your proposal and you were spot on. It is impossible to align behind a common goal if we have no idea what it is. With a DAO this big I feel it is crucial. A united goal of the DAO was mentioned in the Coffee w/Cap spaces yesterday, so maybe now people will be open to it.
The fact that 4 . 5 million of the votes against your proposal were Machi’s just reinforces the need for a new voting structure that doesn’t allow for individuals to have such a large impact.
Your proposal for the closure of the working groups looks like a good starting point for sure. I do though want to go through the entire thread, and will give a proper reply in there.
I agree that there is likely more to the story, I wanted to avoid too much speculation on my part, as I haven’t really looked too much into the issues/controversies surrounding the council/working groups etc.
I do agree, that tear it down and start from scratch is a tempting proposal lol. There does need to be a massive overhaul of the foundations. The issue I see is that, we seem to be trying to solve on-going secondary problems, rather than taking a step back and fixing the primary ones. It’s a lot of work, but would be so worth it. I would happily give my time to advise in areas in my skill set.
One question I have for you - Do you think it would be best to open a new topic for a proposal of the restructuring of voting, or add it to this one?
Again thank you for your reply. I look forward to more discourse with you in the future.
CraniumCalvin:
I cannot understand why a mission statement would be turned down, I just checke…
CraniumCalvin:
I cannot understand why a mission statement would be turned down, I just checked out your proposal and you were spot on.
For one thing, it was sloppy and hastily constructed. I was not the author and had no hand in it. More here AIP- 256 : ApeCoin DAO Mission Statement
CraniumCalvin:
One question I have for you - Do you think it would be best to open a new topic for a proposal of the restructuring of voting, or add it to this one?
I don’t think it’s worth the effort at this moment in time because, for one thing, as I just mentioned in this response, there are rumors (also hinted at by Waabam on X) of on-going activities to dissolve the Special Council. So, we should hold off and just opine on that proposal if/when it does materialize.
Regardless, we could write up entire workups, plans etc. but there would be no [feasible] way to get the Ape Foundation to take adverse action against itself.
CraniumCalvin:
Again thank you for your reply. I look forward to more discourse with you in the future.
Likewise.
CraniumCalvin: SmartAPE:
For one thing, it was sloppy and hastily constructed. I was not the author and had no hand in it.
Ok, this makes sense. This is essentially what I just replied to @chimperton about this. I feel this is a much better approach. If the community can input ideas then they will feel more empowered.
I think it was @badteeth that possibly mentioned this in the spaces yesterday (may be wrong as I was looking after my 4 year old whilst listening lol).
CraniumCalvin: SmartAPE:
I don’t think it’s worth the effort at this moment in time because, for one thing, as I just mentioned in this response, there are rumors (also hinted at by Waabam on X) of on-going activities to dissolve the Special Council. So, we should hold off and just opine on that proposal if/when it does materialize.
Regardless, we could write up entire workups, plans etc. but there would be no [feasible] way to get the Ape Foundation to take adverse action against itself.
This makes sense. I agree that letting the dust settle here is a good move.
I agree that the biggest hurdle with this is asking the larger holders to give up their voting power. The fact they could easily vote is down is both the reason we need the change, and the the major obstacle in our way. Between a rock and a hard place comes to mind
I had a rough idea of Sub-DAOs - Here is an exert from my post about it:
We do of course need to incentivise large holders to give up the power they have. We could achieve this by promoting the use of sub DAOs, where the voting power of the sub DAO is based on the number of users in them, with maximum voting power being based on the tokens held for the main DAO.
Of course this is a very brief outline and the actual execution needs fleshing out (if it even works). The way I see it is that if we don’t, then their power will soon be worthless, so a mutually beneficial solution is in the interests of everyone.
Anyway, happy to get together with anyone that wants to help throw some ideas around.
Valid point. I think that it would stand more of a chance if we were to get a community discussion …
Valid point. I think that it would stand more of a chance if we were to get a community discussion going around this topic. That way we can get some input. I feel the more the community feels empowered the more likely it would be gain traction.
SmartAPE:
For one thing, it was sloppy and hastily constructed. I was not the author and had n…
SmartAPE:
For one thing, it was sloppy and hastily constructed. I was not the author and had no hand in it.
Ok, this makes sense. This is essentially what I just replied to @chimperton about this. I feel this is a much better approach. If the community can input ideas then they will feel more empowered.
I think it was @badteeth that possibly mentioned this in the spaces yesterday (may be wrong as I was looking after my 4 year old whilst listening lol).
SmartAPE:
I don’t think it’s worth the effort at this moment in time because, for one thing, a…
SmartAPE:
I don’t think it’s worth the effort at this moment in time because, for one thing, as I just mentioned in this response, there are rumors (also hinted at by Waabam on X) of on-going activities to dissolve the Special Council. So, we should hold off and just opine on that proposal if/when it does materialize.
Regardless, we could write up entire workups, plans etc. but there would be no [feasible] way to get the Ape Foundation to take adverse action against itself.
This makes sense. I agree that letting the dust settle here is a good move.
I agree that the biggest hurdle with this is asking the larger holders to give up their voting power. The fact they could easily vote is down is both the reason we need the change, and the the major obstacle in our way. Between a rock and a hard place comes to mind :joy:
I had a rough idea of Sub-DAOs - Here is an exert from my post about it:
We do of course need to incentivise large holders to give up the power they have. We could achieve this by promoting the use of sub DAOs, where the voting power of the sub DAO is based on the number of users in them, with maximum voting power being based on the tokens held for the main DAO.
Of course this is a very brief outline and the actual execution needs fleshing out (if it even works). The way I see it is that if we don’t, then their power will soon be worthless, so a mutually beneficial solution is in the interests of everyone.
Anyway, happy to get together with anyone that wants to help throw some ideas around.
Yes, it needs to reconstruct from top to bottom.
Everyone working on the same mission and vision, n…
Yes, it needs to reconstruct from top to bottom.
Everyone working on the same mission and vision, no like current; each steward in each working group has their own project proposal; zero cross-functionality.
Shout it out now! General
Dismiss WGs, reconstruct Ape Foundation, and consolidate the Banana Bills, ApeChain personnel.
Stop using Coinbase Prime; don’t see the benefit of using it when there are SAFE multisignatures available.
Define the management and operation team responsibility and accountability, hiring term, and impeachment procedure.
Having non-pay positions as Foundation leaders, select from Yuga and active DAO members in rotation to lead the vision and mission.
Grants implement milestone-based funding, a ma…
CraniumCalvin: likkee.eth:
Yes, it needs to reconstruct from top to bottom.
Everyone working on the same mission and vision, no like current; each steward in each working group has their own project proposal; zero cross-functionality.
Hi likkee,
Thank you for your input. I agree, one main mission that we can all get behind feels like a great place to start.
I am glad you highlighted what seems to be a lack of connectivity between different groups, as I wasn’t aware of this. I can understand different people (if we have that kind of structure going forward) having different roles, but to divide up project proposals sounds like a recipe for disaster, and only leads to a lack of consistency within what should be one role.
I have it on my to-do list to comment in some other topics, so will 100% take a closer look at the one you linked here.
CraniumCalvin:
Dunbar’s Number Theory is essentially the idea that you can only have a meaning…
CraniumCalvin:
Dunbar’s Number Theory is essentially the idea that you can only have a meaningful relationship with 150 people. When you go beyond this point fragmentation starts to occur. The more people that join a community, the less they know one another; the less they trust one another.
I applaud your positive and thoughtful post. I’m currently doing research in exactly this field - community cohesivenss in DAOs - and part of that is definitely size. As you mentioned, there are a number of factors that go into group trust and collective effervescence. I agree that, in DAOs, this is highly related to decentralized governance, transparency. and (perceived) accountability. Anyway, I enjoyed what you wrote and I’d love to connect via DM and chat about it if you’re willing.
DavidW:
I applaud your positive and thoughtful post. I’m currently doing research in exactly t…
DavidW:
I applaud your positive and thoughtful post. I’m currently doing research in exactly this field - community cohesivenss in DAOs - and part of that is definitely size. As you mentioned, there are a number of factors that go into group trust and collective effervescence. I agree that, in DAOs, this is highly related to decentralized governance, transparency. and (perceived) accountability. Anyway, I enjoyed what you wrote and I’d love to connect via DM and chat about it if you’re willing.
Hi David,
Thank you for you response, and yes I would love to connect. I am glad to hear there is someone else researching a similar topic.
For me the scalability issue is one of the main issues we need to solve. One thing I have considered is that even though participation is currently low, we can use that to our advantage. I believe that DAOs stand a better chance if they start small and grow, as smaller initial numbers make it easier to achieve overall cohesiveness.
Anyway I look forward to connecting and discussing this further.
likkee.eth:
Yes, it needs to reconstruct from top to bottom.
Everyone working on the same miss…
likkee.eth:
Yes, it needs to reconstruct from top to bottom.
Everyone working on the same mission and vision, no like current; each steward in each working group has their own project proposal; zero cross-functionality.
Hi likkee,
Thank you for your input. I agree, one main mission that we can all get behind feels like a great place to start.
I am glad you highlighted what seems to be a lack of connectivity between different groups, as I wasn’t aware of this. I can understand different people (if we have that kind of structure going forward) having different roles, but to divide up project proposals sounds like a recipe for disaster, and only leads to a lack of consistency within what should be one role.
I have it on my to-do list to comment in some other topics, so will 100 % take a closer look at the one you linked here.
Here’s the thing. Unless and until we dissolve the Special Council, Working Groups, and while we’re…
Here’s the thing. Unless and until we dissolve the Special Council, Working Groups, and while we’re on a roll, replace WebSlinger - and start from scratch with new processes, guidelines, people etc. nothing in the DAO will change. Nothing.
And in case anyone was actually dreaming about this, let me be clear, nothing we opine on here will come to pass without a proposal. And those proposals are subject to the whims of the whale wallets who elected all these people in the first place.
I will say this again, I’m literally the best and most qualified person to help fix this mess. But I can’t do it without either someone writing up a proposal or the Ape Foundation engages me to do it. The end result will be basically what happens in the corporate world because there will be a complete plan for how it would be done.
SmartAPE:
Here’s the thing. Unless and until we dissolve the Special Council, Working Groups, …
SmartAPE:
Here’s the thing. Unless and until we dissolve the Special Council, Working Groups, and while we’re on a roll, replace WebSlinger - and start from scratch with new processes, guidelines, people etc. nothing in the DAO will change. Nothing.
I agree that these areas need massive reform, and have contributed to a lot of the problems we have today. But, I would also say that one reason they have so much power is because apathy is so high. Like most things in life, the majority have power, they are usually just too downtrodden to unite and utilise it in a meaningful way.
SmartAPE:
And in case anyone was actually dreaming about this, let me be clear, nothing we opine on here will come to pass without a proposal. And those proposals are subject to the whims of the whale wallets who elected all these people in the first place.
I agree that we need a proposal, and that is exactly where I hope this will lead. But! A proposal with no backing from the wider community is pointless. It is likely why no meaningful change has ever happened, and it’s exactly why I haven’t put one together so far. Revolution takes numbers, and alignment from the majority.
SmartAPE:
I will say this again, I’m literally the best and most qualified person to help fix this mess. But I can’t do it without either someone writing up a proposal or the Ape Foundation engages me to do it. The end result will be basically what happens in the corporate world because there will be a complete plan for how it would be done.
I think collectively we stand a chance. I don’t think there is a single solution to the many issues we currently have. I would argue that not one person knows all the answers, there are no experts, because no one has solved the scalability issue of decentralisation and DAOs. No one has even solved the issue of scaling a society without choosing a master.
I have spent the best part of 3 years designing tokenomics and ecosystems, I have also spent that time pondering the issue of scalability and voting structures within DAOs (this is where I feel I can make the biggest impact). Having only spoken to you briefly in here so far, I would like to understand what makes you think that you are the most qualified to solve the problems we have, and I mean no offence from that question, I just want to understand your skill set.
I do not doubt you can bring a lot to the table, but IMO this requires not only a team effort, but a level of diplomacy to find compromise with all parties involved. If we can create a proposal, or set of proposals that provide a strong argument for positive change within the DAO. Which is also mutually beneficial for all, then I think we stand a chance.
SmartAPE: CraniumCalvin:
I agree that these areas need massive reform, and have contributed to a lot of the problems we have today. But, I would also say that one reason they have so much power is because apathy is so high. Like most things in life, the majority have power, they are usually just too downtrodden to unite and utilise it in a meaningful way.
I agree that we need a proposal, and that is exactly where I hope this will lead. But! A proposal with no backing from the wider community is pointless. It is likely why no meaningful change has ever happened, and it’s exactly why I haven’t put one together so far. Revolution takes numbers, and alignment from the majority.
CraniumCalvin:
I do not doubt you can bring a lot to the table, but IMO this requires not only a team effort, but a level of diplomacy to find compromise with all parties involved. If we can create a proposal, or set of proposals that provide a strong argument for positive change within the DAO. Which is also mutually beneficial for all, then I think we stand a chance.
Indeed. And obviously it will take a team to do something this. But all teams still need a lead. Hence the “I” language.
As you aptly mentioned in your rather eloquent post, the core of the issues in the DAO is that though the minority have a massive amount of power, they have chosen not to wield it. And there are many reasons for why that is.
And to those who are resistant to change, I say:
“I’m sorry, I know you mean well. You just didn’t think it through. You want to protect the DAO but you don’t want it to change. How is the DAO saved if it’s not allowed to… evolve? With the same people? These puppets. There’s only one path to change. The extinction of the old ways.”
DavidW: CraniumCalvin:
Revolution takes numbers, and alignment from the majority.
My understanding is there are whale wallets with enough tokens to outvote every single individual put together. The kind of revolution you’re describing has happened at times in history, but it has taken years of massive grassroots organization. What has driven them is typically life or death situations that involve the basic physiological conditions of survival for a nation, not the desire for a more efficient company.
CraniumCalvin:
A proposal with no backing from the wider community is pointless.
I believe what is needed is backing from the controlling whale wallets. If they disagree, any proposal fails. That is the nature of oligarchy and plutocracy. @bigbull has worked hard to put together delegations. While they cannot outvote the whales, a consortium of delegations may be able to sway some of the whales, so long as the outcome of any changes do not significantly disadvantage them in ways they feel are meaningful.
CraniumCalvin:
I think collectively we stand a chance.
I agree and will never stop fighting. I believe you feel that way, too. It may not be here in this DAO, but every new discussion takes us one step closer to finding a polycentric solution that enhances social infrastructure, improves civic engagement, helps effective public goods distribution, and brings transparency and accountability back to a system that is structurally flawed.
Welcome to the forum @CraniumCalvin! I really appreciate you sharing your thoughts on how to fix th…
Welcome to the forum @CraniumCalvin! I really appreciate you sharing your thoughts on how to fix the ApeCoin DAO.
As far as getting everyone aligned behind a mission statement, I know @SmartAPE already mentioned that we had AIP- 256 , but that was not the first attempt. That AIP was a resubmission from @badteeth. Before that, he had AIP- 191 , which was deemed to Return for Reconstruction. This happened during the time of Working Group Zero (WG 0 ), where I served as a Steward alongside Badteeth. At first, we even considered incorporating the mission statement into WG 0 .
Badteeth spent months facilitating mission statement workshops with the community. He gathered feedback through surveys in five different languages, hosted discussions in a dedicated channel in the ApeCoin Discord, shared Google Docs open for comments, and conducted polls—all in an effort to build consensus on a mission statement that everyone could agree on. This was back when the DAO was still in its early stages and hadn’t yet started accepting funds, so the focus was on a grants-based DAO.
The result was this mission statement, which incorporated the feedback: “ApeCoin DAO exists to distribute $APE – empowering our community to build and participate in the future of the Greater Metaverse, today.”
If you’re interested in a deeper dive, Badteeth even documented the entire process:
docs.google.com
ApeCoin DAO Mission Statement
ApeCoin DAO Mission StatementThe Process Thus Far ApeCoin DAO exists to distribute $APE – empowering our community to build and participate in the future of the Greater Metaverse, today. With the conclusion of the WG 0 mission statement workshops we...
One of the difficulties in reaching consensus is that not all voters are engaged with the DAO’s daily activities. Though everything was shared along the way, not all voters took notice during that phase, so there wasn’t unanimous agreement and we opted to not make it a part of WG 0 .
Throughout my time at the DAO, the closest thing I have seen as a mission statement is this from the early days:
x.com
ApeCoin
@apecoin
Introducing ApeCoin ($APE), a token for culture, gaming, and commerce used to empower a decentralized community building at the forefront of web 3 . ?
9 : 02 PM - 16 Mar 2022
31 K
9 . 9 K
Thanks again for sharing your insights. I look forward to hearing more and am here to support the DAO however I can.
CraniumCalvin: GM,
Thank you for the warm welcome. I am overwhelmed by the feedback I have received so far, especially as I am a newcomer.
Also, thank you for sharing all of this information, I will digest the document you linked over the weekend.
adventurousape:
The result was this mission statement, which incorporated the feedback: “ApeCoin DAO exists to distribute $APE – empowering our community to build and participate in the future of the Greater Metaverse, today.”
This was of course a very relevant mission statement when the DAO originally launched, and perhaps given that the ecosystem was very small back then, it was very easy to understand the overall goals of the DAO. I think now that it has been around for a while, and we have ApeChain launching it feels like the right time to expand on this. For me it’s still pretty easy to see a clear direction, as all the current things the DAO does directly correlate to the overall expansion of the $APE ecosystem.
adventurousape:
One of the difficulties in reaching consensus is that not all voters are engaged with the DAO’s daily activities.
IMO this is one of the biggest issues we face. The overall centralisation of voting power can be credited to both the sheer amount of voter apathy and the lack of voter equality. I feel that the lack of voter equality is likely a contributing factor to the lack of participation, but not the only thing.
Bear markets are always slow, and participation was likely effected massively by this. I think as the market picks up we have a chance to attract more participation. If we can find a way to incentivise the majority to participate, we massively reduce the centralisation we are seeing.
This could be a less dramatic way to create positive change. As we know, the larger token holders, hold all the cards right now. The more members we can incentivise to vote, the less power the larger holders have, and the more decentralised the DAO becomes. This is no different to the current sentiment in society right now, the majority hold so much power, we just need to wake them up.
So, the question remains. How can we restore confidence, and lower voter apathy?
I still believe we need to move away from a system of voting where members can buy influence. But this is not likely a proposal that will pass until we increase participation from the majority.
Thank you for you input and insight into some of the DAOs history. When I have a bee in my bonnet I don’t give up easily, so I am here to stay. Your continued input would be very much appreciated, I feel a revolution is beginning to take shape.
DavidW: adventurousape:
The result was this mission statement, which incorporated the feedback: “ApeCoin DAO exists to distribute $APE – empowering our community to build and participate in the future of the Greater Metaverse, today.”
If you’re interested in a deeper dive, Badteeth even documented the entire process
Thank you @adventurousape for this backstory and context. It’s very valuable to see what the DAO felt was a solid previous iteration of a mission statement. And respect to @badteeth for both a great username and what sounds like a tremendous amount of labor for the DAO.
CraniumCalvin:
I agree that these areas need massive reform, and have contributed to a lot of …
CraniumCalvin:
I agree that these areas need massive reform, and have contributed to a lot of the problems we have today. But, I would also say that one reason they have so much power is because apathy is so high. Like most things in life, the majority have power, they are usually just too downtrodden to unite and utilise it in a meaningful way.
I agree that we need a proposal, and that is exactly where I hope this will lead. But! A proposal with no backing from the wider community is pointless. It is likely why no meaningful change has ever happened, and it’s exactly why I haven’t put one together so far. Revolution takes numbers, and alignment from the majority.
CraniumCalvin:
I do not doubt you can bring a lot to the table, but IMO this requires not only a team effort, but a level of diplomacy to find compromise with all parties involved. If we can create a proposal, or set of proposals that provide a strong argument for positive change within the DAO. Which is also mutually beneficial for all, then I think we stand a chance.
Indeed. And obviously it will take a team to do something this. But all teams still need a lead. Hence the “I” language.
As you aptly mentioned in your rather eloquent post, the core of the issues in the DAO is that though the minority have a massive amount of power, they have chosen not to wield it. And there are many reasons for why that is.
And to those who are resistant to change, I say:
“I’m sorry, I know you mean well. You just didn’t think it through. You want to protect the DAO but you don’t want it to change. How is the DAO saved if it’s not allowed to… evolve? With the same people? These puppets. There’s only one path to change. The extinction of the old ways.”
CraniumCalvin: SmartAPE:
As you aptly mentioned in your rather eloquent post, the core of the issues in the DAO is that though the minority have a massive amount of power, they have chosen not to wield it. And there are many reasons for why that is.
You are bang on, and as I said in my reply to @adventurousape, we first need to wake up the masses. Without them we wont succeed.
I feel that everyone in this discussion are on the same page, It would be good to get a consensus on who wants to get together and try and put together a plan for a path forward.
GM,
Thank you for the warm welcome. I am overwhelmed by the feedback I have received so far, especi…
GM,
Thank you for the warm welcome. I am overwhelmed by the feedback I have received so far, especially as I am a newcomer.
Also, thank you for sharing all of this information, I will digest the document you linked over the weekend.
adventurousape:
The result was this mission statement, which incorporated the feedback: “ApeCoin DAO exists to distribute $APE – empowering our community to build and participate in the future of the Greater Metaverse, today.”
This was of course a very relevant mission statement when the DAO originally launched, and perhaps given that the ecosystem was very small back then, it was very easy to understand the overall goals of the DAO. I think now that it has been around for a while, and we have ApeChain launching it feels like the right time to expand on this. For me it’s still pretty easy to see a clear direction, as all the current things the DAO does directly correlate to the overall expansion of the $APE ecosystem.
adventurousape:
One of the difficulties in reaching consensus is that not all voters are engaged with the DAO’s daily activities.
IMO this is one of the biggest issues we face. The overall centralisation of voting power can be credited to both the sheer amount of voter apathy and the lack of voter equality. I feel that the lack of voter equality is likely a contributing factor to the lack of participation, but not the only thing.
Bear markets are always slow, and participation was likely effected massively by this. I think as the market picks up we have a chance to attract more participation. If we can find a way to incentivise the majority to participate, we massively reduce the centralisation we are seeing.
This could be a less dramatic way to create positive change. As we know, the larger token holders, hold all the cards right now. The more members we can incentivise to vote, the less power the larger holders have, and the more decentralised the DAO becomes. This is no different to the current sentiment in society right now, the majority hold so much power, we just need to wake them up.
So, the question remains. How can we restore confidence, and lower voter apathy?
I still believe we need to move away from a system of voting where members can buy influence. But this is not likely a proposal that will pass until we increase participation from the majority.
Thank you for you input and insight into some of the DAOs history. When I have a bee in my bonnet I don’t give up easily, so I am here to stay. Your continued input would be very much appreciated, I feel a revolution is beginning to take shape.
SmartAPE:
As you aptly mentioned in your rather eloquent post, the core of the issues in the D…
SmartAPE:
As you aptly mentioned in your rather eloquent post, the core of the issues in the DAO is that though the minority have a massive amount of power, they have chosen not to wield it. And there are many reasons for why that is.
You are bang on, and as I said in my reply to @adventurousape, we first need to wake up the masses. Without them we wont succeed.
I feel that everyone in this discussion are on the same page, It would be good to get a consensus on who wants to get together and try and put together a plan for a path forward.
CraniumCalvin:
I feel that everyone in this discussion are on the same page, It would be good …
CraniumCalvin:
I feel that everyone in this discussion are on the same page, It would be good to get a consensus on who wants to get together and try and put together a plan for a path forward.
Welcome to the struggle.
What way Forward?
I have been thinking about this question. Whether option a or option b (or somet…
What way Forward?
I have been thinking about this question. Whether option a or option b (or something in the middle). Also, having an evolution that complies with our current Governance rules is important.
Option A
Refine the current model.
Fix all the issues in the current charters, bring AIP to replace charters.
Consider which working groups to keep.
If necessary bring AIPs to dissolve, with one Working Group dissolution decision per AIP.
Option B
Centralised Foundation Structure
Move functions like:
Legal
Communications
Grant Facilitation
Brand Management
Branded presence at Key events around the world
Banana Bill
Ecosystem fund for commercial deals to grow ApeChain.
Common Good larger Grants
E.g.
Boring Security
Delegate Accelerator
Gaming Aliiance
Creators Assembly
Small Grants
Micro Rewards - ThankApe
Not sub-DAOs, but funded AIPs. Could be for profit or 100 % independent Non Profits entities.
Community Grants and Rewards
This would be in-direct via the larger common good grants, such as Small Grants, Delegate Accelerator or Thankape.
Slimmed down DAO
Recurrent endowment from then Foundation from a percentage of Banana Bill and ApeChain profits.
Governance Working Group
Slimmed down to handle DAO with much more limited but financially sustainable grants allowance. A watch body function, including monitoring of grant implementations.
Security Council
Similar to Arbitrum. Highly experienced individuals available in emergency situations.
CraniumCalvin: gm @bigbull, Thank you for joining the conversation.
As someone that has obviously been an active part of the DAO for a while, I feel your input is extremely valuable.
bigbull:
having an evolution that complies with our current Governance rules is important.
When you say Governance rules, are you referring to regulations?
I think after reading your ideas, and considering a different angle to the scalability concerns I have. I feel a mixture of the two is possibly the way, at least for the time being.
Your mention of the ‘Banana Bill’ has sparked a trail of thought for me. Although delegation of decisions in areas such as the Banana Bill does centralised those decisions, I don’t necessarily see this as a bad thing, if done right. I think we can all agree that not everyone has the knowledge and skills to make an informed decision on every aspect of the DAO, and the result of this is can be people voting for themselves, or based on who has drafted the proposal. If this happens, it is possible that the best outcome for the DAO isn’t always the result of the vote.
Perhaps the best option right now is to use delegation to help the DAO stay on course.
For example:
A team or person has the required skills and knowledge in a particular area of the day to day running of the DAO, and wants to assist the DAO by taking care of this. A vote takes place to decided whether this happens or not.
To protect the DAO from potential corruption, or bad decision making, there needs to be both full transparency and the ability to hold the person/team to account. The ability to pause, replace, or remove the delegation completely needs to be present. To achieve this, full transparency is key. We can’t hold to account the things we can’t see.
We would also need to work out a better compensation structure than the current ‘salary’ set up we have. Possibly something KPIs based. But this would vary depending on the area of the delegation. I agree that the current system is broken, but I believe people should be rewarded for work done.
------------------------------------------------------------
This is of course just one area that needs work, but one step at a time
MaximusMX: Really interesting perspective on the two sets of options, appreciate you sharing.
Think Option B is similar to the direction many other DAOs / Foundations have gone, where the foundation is centralize but plays a strong role in pushing the ecosystem forward with a separate entity that is the for-profit and/or corporate (OP Labs vs. Optimism).
Interesting approach - would love to dig deeper into what that might look like ApeCoin DAO specifically.
I’m happy to see a discussion on this. Initially, my only real input would be that before any new p…
I’m happy to see a discussion on this. Initially, my only real input would be that before any new plans are made or changes are implemented, we should be fully aware of all (or as many as feasible) reasons why we to begin with. If we lose sight and not plan on fixing those things, we run the risk of running on this hamster wheel.
CraniumCalvin: stance:
I’m happy to see a discussion on this. Initially, my only real input would be that before any new plans are made or changes are implemented, we should be fully aware of all (or as many as feasible) reasons why we to begin with. If we lose sight and not plan on fixing those things, we run the risk of running on this hamster wheel.
Hey @stance, thank you for joining the discussion.
I agree completely. My feelings are that the issues all stem from one thing, the boiler plate set up of the DAO on day 1. The main issue being the voting system, that allows the buying of votes. This has allowed the centralisation of decision making.
But! I know that this is a difficult one to solve, we need the ones who hold the power to surrender it, for the good of the DAO. For this reason I feel baby steps towards this goal are required, and a focus on the issue of high voter apathy could help solve the issue above. If we can increase overall participation, we increase decentralisation.
