So, AIP- 279 passed some months ago.
@AmericanApe has posted some concerns on xTwitter regarding the contract that he received. Not sure why he didn’t post here. Anyway, that’s why I am creating this thread.
Update on Apecoin AIP- 270
Upon reviewing the Grant agreement, my counsel & I identified some serious problems.
It would require me to surrender all claims of authorship for the pilot and any potential monetization.
It also grants a broad license for the animated pilot to be reproduced, made into derivatives, & potentially monetized by literally anyone else in the “general public.”
It also requires governing laws of the Cayman Islands, but any arbitration to take place in San Francisco. Complex crossroads to navigate there.
Drafting some proposed language changes, but NGL, this has me nervous, if they push back on any of it.
By signing as is, I forfeit pretty much everything to the general public AKA it becomes a CC 0 work which makes it nearly impossible to get a distribution deal and I waive my right to claim authorship.
My live reaction to the agreement:
We need more insight into stuff like this so that they can be addressed here - in the DAO - before they spill out into the general public with context and insight.
In fact, stuff like this is why I have a docs request AIP Idea that’s about to go to draft.
It’s foolish and ignorant to opine on a contract that you haven’t seen. So, there’s not much to say here. But if what he says is true, those are some serious restrictions. Especially as it relates to the IP.
Additional Resources
What Are the Pros and Cons of Applying For Grants
@AmericanApe raised concerns on Twitter regarding the issues with the Grant agreement related to Apecoin AIP-270, highlighting potential problems with surrendering authorship claims and broad licensing terms. The agreement requires accepting governance laws from the Cayman Islands but arbitration in San Francisco. There are proposed language changes for negotiation, but concerns remain about forfeiting rights by signing without amendments. The post sheds light on the importance of discussing and resolving such issues within the DAO community before they escalate publicly, emphasizing the need for more transparency and insights.2
Chris.Admin - This user is a moderator, Facilitator
Aug. 9, 2023, 12:53 p.m.
Note: this post was recategorized to “General” from initial “Get Help” designation.
Note: this post was recategorized to “General” from initial “Get Help” designation.
Equally not sure why you decided to post about me rather than address me directly.
Anyway, I’m avai…
Equally not sure why you decided to post about me rather than address me directly.
Anyway, I’m available for any questions and discussions, as always and will continue to use my public social platforms to address concerns that affect a broader group of people than the ones active in this discourse. I prefer not to be passive-aggressively chastised for that, Ser or Madame.
First - I’m not confident with this platform’s reach and exposure, because despite posting the AIP- 279 draft here initially for the open comment/concern period, those who ultimately voted NO on the AIP did not express a single concern or question here - meaning there’s far less visibility and interaction for debating issues here than on Twitter. There is an echo-chamber of active participants here and, quite frankly, not enough public discussion for DAO progress beyond talk of salaries and AIPs.
Second - it was the DAO’s legal team that attempted to make my “Work Product” available for exploitation to the “General Public” in their brutally broad “Grant License” clause, so it seemed more than fitting to discuss it in a public arena.
Had I carelessly signed it (as some previous AIP authors may have) anyone in the “general public” - their words, not mine - would be able to reproduce, create derivative works, monetize, sell, resell, distribute, and otherwise exploit the “Work Product” AKA the pilot and I would have forfeited all rights to claim authorship or “control distribution.”
If this response comes across as aggressive, forgive me, but it’s because I am quite perturbed that I even have to have this discussion at all, after going through the entire KYC process and fighting hard daily to counteract the politics of inactive, disinterested and silent APE holders for that final win, only to be hit with this “gotcha” clause.
I’ve also learned in the last few hours that the DAO’s legal team isn’t actually presenting each AIP with a “standard” agreement, but I’ll let that AIP Author come forward when they are ready. It seems predatory at best and incompetent legalese at worst. I’m disappointed that this allegedly “standard” agreement hasn’t been discussed before, as it affects all AIP authors who win the community vote, but I’m prepared to discuss it will full transparency so that no one else has to deal with this headache moving forward.
SmartAPE: AmericanApe:
Equally not sure why you decided to post about me rather than address me directly.
I did address you directly by pinging you in the post. What else did you mean?
Anyway, I’m available for any questions and discussions, as always and will continue to use my public social platforms to address concerns that affect a broader group of people than the ones active in this discourse. I prefer not to be passive-aggressively chastised for that, Ser or Madame.
That is your right. And I am pretty sure that nobody here is passive-aggressively chastising you. I am unsure how you came to that conclusion.
In fact, I only created this thread when I saw bigbull post the Twitter link in Discord and asking for comments. I took one look and decided that it was something worth discussing in Discourse not only for your benefit, but also for the benefit of the DAO that awarded you the grant.
First - I’m not confident with this platform’s reach and exposure, because despite posting the AIP-279 draft here initially for the open comment/concern period, those who ultimately voted NO on the AIP did not express a single concern or question here - meaning there’s far less visibility and interaction for debating issues here than on Twitter. There is an echo-chamber of active participants here and, quite frankly, not enough public discussion for DAO progress beyond talk of salaries and AIPs.
Those are valid concerns, however I don’t understand how Twitter - which wouldn’t have any insight into the AIP - is considered a better outlet than here where 1) you got the grant from 2) you have an issue with the contract sent to you by the Ape Foundation as per the grant.
Second - it was the DAO’s legal team that attempted to make my “Work Product” available for exploitation to the “General Public” in their brutally broad “Grant License” clause, so it seemed more than fitting to discuss it in a public arena.
Unless and until you actually agree to and sign the agreement, nothing in it can be considered as binding nor exploitative. And I mentioned above, the public can’t opine on the contract because none of us - besides you, the Ape Foundation and the legal team, have seen it.
So, taking it to the general public - that being Twitter - is making one-sided opinions and statements about a contract that the public hasn’t seen. So, how do you expect the public to give you an accurate assessment of something they haven’t seen? They can’t. Which is why the comments in the Twitter feed are based on your comments about the contract.
Further, by doing that, you put the Ape Foundation in an unfair position and cast it in a poor light, without them having the ability to defend nor explain the contract that you have issues with. Yes, it’s OK to have issues with a contract, but how do you expect to have unbiased and reasonable feedback from a public that hasn’t seen it?
Had I carelessly signed it (as some previous AIP authors may have) anyone in the “general public” - their words, not mine - would be able to reproduce, create derivative works, monetize, sell, resell, distribute, and otherwise exploit the “Work Product” AKA the pilot and I would have forfeited all rights to claim authorship or “control distribution.”
Yes - that’s why people read contracts and not just sign them.
If this response comes across as aggressive, forgive me, but it’s because I am quite perturbed that I even have to have this discussion at all, after going through the entire KYC process and fighting hard daily to counteract the politics of inactive, disinterested and silent APE holders for that final win, only to be hit with this “gotcha” clause.
It reads perfectly fine to me - not aggressively at all. But I don’t see it as a gotcha clause. As someone who regularly issues and receives contracts, it’s attorneys who create these contracts. And most of the time the contracts are boilerplate templates which still need to be revised for a particular situation. And you just hit that limitation. So, don’t be upset about receiving a contract like that; just work through it with them. But only an attorney can assist you with that - not the public which hasn’t seen it nor aware of the scope.
I’ve also learned in the last few hours that the DAO’s legal team isn’t actually presenting each AIP with a “standard” agreement, but I’ll let that AIP Author come forward when they are ready. It seems predatory at best and incompetent legalese at worst. I’m disappointed that this allegedly “standard” agreement hasn’t been discussed before, as it affects all AIP authors who win the community vote, but I’m prepared to discuss it will full transparency so that no one else has to deal with this headache moving forward.
The issue is that there’s no “one size fits all” approach to contracts. Especially for a DAO that gives grants to various types of AIPs.
Also, I don’t understand what you mean by “predatory”. The DAO isn’t profiting from the AIP. It’s basically free money that comes with some conditions.
In fact, I have an AIP related to this very same issue whereby we have no insight to these contracts and legal structures.
ssp1111: Was trying to bring this up on Wednesday’s Spaces hosted by ApeComms
AmericanApe:
I’m disappointed that this allegedly “standard” agreement hasn’t been discussed before
And 100% on this
AmericanApe:
to protect the rights of authors as much as we look out for the preservation of the Foundation
AmericanApe:
Equally not sure why you decided to post about me rather than address me directly…
AmericanApe:
Equally not sure why you decided to post about me rather than address me directly.
I did address you directly by pinging you in the post. What else did you mean?
Anyway, I’m available for any questions and discussions, as always and will continue to use my public social platforms to address concerns that affect a broader group of people than the ones active in this discourse. I prefer not to be passive-aggressively chastised for that, Ser or Madame.
That is your right. And I am pretty sure that nobody here is passive-aggressively chastising you. I am unsure how you came to that conclusion.
In fact, I only created this thread when I saw bigbull post the Twitter link in Discord and asking for comments. I took one look and decided that it was something worth discussing in Discourse not only for your benefit, but also for the benefit of the DAO that awarded you the grant.
Screenshot 2023 - 08 - 09 173210828 × 205 16 . 8 KB
Screenshot 2023 - 08 - 09 173237598 × 834 94 . 5 KB
First - I’m not confident with this platform’s reach and exposure, because despite posting the AIP- 279 draft here initially for the open comment/concern period, those who ultimately voted NO on the AIP did not express a single concern or question here - meaning there’s far less visibility and interaction for debating issues here than on Twitter. There is an echo-chamber of active participants here and, quite frankly, not enough public discussion for DAO progress beyond talk of salaries and AIPs.
Those are valid concerns, however I don’t understand how Twitter - which wouldn’t have any insight into the AIP - is considered a better outlet than here where 1 ) you got the grant from 2 ) you have an issue with the contract sent to you by the Ape Foundation as per the grant.
Second - it was the DAO’s legal team that attempted to make my “Work Product” available for exploitation to the “General Public” in their brutally broad “Grant License” clause, so it seemed more than fitting to discuss it in a public arena.
Unless and until you actually agree to and sign the agreement, nothing in it can be considered as binding nor exploitative. And I mentioned above, the public can’t opine on the contract because none of us - besides you, the Ape Foundation and the legal team, have seen it.
So, taking it to the general public - that being Twitter - is making one-sided opinions and statements about a contract that the public hasn’t seen. So, how do you expect the public to give you an accurate assessment of something they haven’t seen? They can’t. Which is why the comments in the Twitter feed are based on your comments about the contract.
Further, by doing that, you put the Ape Foundation in an unfair position and cast it in a poor light, without them having the ability to defend nor explain the contract that you have issues with. Yes, it’s OK to have issues with a contract, but how do you expect to have unbiased and reasonable feedback from a public that hasn’t seen it?
Had I carelessly signed it (as some previous AIP authors may have) anyone in the “general public” - their words, not mine - would be able to reproduce, create derivative works, monetize, sell, resell, distribute, and otherwise exploit the “Work Product” AKA the pilot and I would have forfeited all rights to claim authorship or “control distribution.”
Yes - that’s why people read contracts and not just sign them.
If this response comes across as aggressive, forgive me, but it’s because I am quite perturbed that I even have to have this discussion at all, after going through the entire KYC process and fighting hard daily to counteract the politics of inactive, disinterested and silent APE holders for that final win, only to be hit with this “gotcha” clause.
It reads perfectly fine to me - not aggressively at all. But I don’t see it as a gotcha clause. As someone who regularly issues and receives contracts, it’s attorneys who create these contracts. And most of the time the contracts are boilerplate templates which still need to be revised for a particular situation. And you just hit that limitation. So, don’t be upset about receiving a contract like that; just work through it with them. But only an attorney can assist you with that - not the public which hasn’t seen it nor aware of the scope.
I’ve also learned in the last few hours that the DAO’s legal team isn’t actually presenting each AIP with a “standard” agreement, but I’ll let that AIP Author come forward when they are ready. It seems predatory at best and incompetent legalese at worst. I’m disappointed that this allegedly “standard” agreement hasn’t been discussed before, as it affects all AIP authors who win the community vote, but I’m prepared to discuss it will full transparency so that no one else has to deal with this headache moving forward.
The issue is that there’s no “one size fits all” approach to contracts. Especially for a DAO that gives grants to various types of AIPs.
Also, I don’t understand what you mean by “predatory”. The DAO isn’t profiting from the AIP. It’s basically free money that comes with some conditions.
In fact, I have an AIP related to this very same issue whereby we have no insight to these contracts and legal structures.
I’ll update everyone after my call with Fenwick today.
They kindly responded promptly as did a few …
I’ll update everyone after my call with Fenwick today.
They kindly responded promptly as did a few Special Council members, so thank you Gerry and Capetain Trippy for being so focused on a great solution.
The team at Webslinger has been prompt and friendly too, and I have made their cooperation clear within the thread of that same X-post, so I have not figured out why anything I’ve shared is open for debate other than to express an opinion on my communication style.
We all have ideas about how things should be done. That’s essentially why we’re working toward the development of a functional DAO. By definition it should be a Decentralized Autonomous Organization. It is not… yet.
That said, to get there, I believe AIPs should ideally dictate how every aspect of the DAO runs. Otherwise all executive decisions should be kept behind closed doors and a handful of people should make those decisions just like Web 2 and you can create a new acronym. But at the same time, the whales will have to vote on an AIP that renders them powerless to sway decisions, so that’s another bridge to cross later.
Decentralized Autonomous Organizations have a long way to go before they are any of the three, but I believe transparency is the first step toward achieving autonomy or decentralization.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and criticisms. I’ll continue to share the process with the people who voted on the proposal on the platforms I deem necessary.
Once again, I’m happy to share the “standard but simultaneously, not one-size-fits all” agreement with anyone who requests to see it, for full transparency of the AIP drafting, voting, verification, funding, execution and delivery processes.
For what it’s worth, I’ve seen lots of contracts too. Most of them at the highest levels of the entertainment industry. I deal specifically in Commercial Intellectual Property Rights and I have for over a decade.
I have never received a grant. I’ve been self and community funded for a while. I am still confused that the DAO, by default would offer a grant that templated an Open License as part of the terms of financing a project in nearly any industry, unless it’s maybe a software specific “Work Product.” The rest of the language doesn’t convince me or any of the lawyers I’ve shared it with.
I won’t presume to know any of your experience with Grant or IP licenses, but some people who follow me across various social media platforms (AKA Marketing) value the information I share and there are many more who do not.
But rest assured, I’m comfortable enough to understand the landscape to actively invest and build in it at the same time. I understand that terms are always negotiable.
I feel adamantly that “default templates” for a DAO should be openly discussed and probably voted on, with a panel of experts from within the community consulting to protect the rights of authors as much as we look out for the preservation of the Foundation.
This is not an attack on the stewards of the process.
We are simply new teammates building for the longevity of a digital asset. If I’ve successfully gotten members of the DAO’s attention whether on Twitter or Discord or YouTube, I believe I’ve done my job.
I will continue to accurately detail the journey and my appreciation for our friends in the Special Council, looking out for DAO members’ rights and the teams at Webslinger & Fenwick, who seem to be promptly and happily managing and negotiating the DAO’s agreements.
Wish you the best, stranger.
“Apes Alone Weak. Apes Together Strong.”
ssp1111: Was trying to bring this up on Wednesday’s Spaces hosted by ApeComms
AmericanApe:
I’m disappointed that this allegedly “standard” agreement hasn’t been discussed before
And 100% on this
AmericanApe:
to protect the rights of authors as much as we look out for the preservation of the Foundation
Yes! Everyone keeps crying about marketing. What better way to market than to show everyone how pr…
Yes! Everyone keeps crying about marketing. What better way to market than to show everyone how progress works?!
Was trying to bring this up on Wednesday’s Spaces hosted by ApeComms :point_down:t 4 :
American…
Was trying to bring this up on Wednesday’s Spaces hosted by ApeComms :point_down:t 4 :
AmericanApe:
I’m disappointed that this allegedly “standard” agreement hasn’t been discussed before
And 100 % on this :point_down:t 4 :
AmericanApe:
to protect the rights of authors as much as we look out for the preservation of the Foundation
Hey Everyone, after a very long but successful process, we finally have signed the AIP Grant agreem…
Hey Everyone, after a very long but successful process, we finally have signed the AIP Grant agreement last week and the Apecoin was transferred late last night.
Development and Pre-production have officially begun, but we did lose a few grand of budget during the dip. Going to try to mitigate loss of budget, while avoiding a full liquidation of APE at once and I’ll give a full update in the next day or two.
I do plan to share more about the AIP process so that we can openly discuss and hopefully optimize it for future Grant winners.
Thanks again for all your support. I will be planning some regular Twitter Spaces (probably twice a month) to give updates about the process and where we are. F
or now, the final script and character designs are priority 1 , so we’re getting started on that and I will be speaking with the Thank Ape team to begin the process for gamifying participation for Ape holders as cameos in the books and pilot. That being said, due to the nature of creating content for Hollywood distribution, the teasers will be tempered and we won’t be revealing too much about the content itself to prevent studio/competitor espionage (which is very real in entertainment when competing for distribution).
I’ll be focused on keeping everyone up to date on where in the production process we are with some sneak peeks at appropriate times on these Myth Division update calls!
As always, I’m here if you need me. Talk soon.
AmericanApe:
but we did lose a few grand of budget during the dip. Going to try to mitigate lo…
AmericanApe:
but we did lose a few grand of budget during the dip. Going to try to mitigate loss of budget, while avoiding a full liquidation of APE at once and I’ll give a full update in the next day or two.
Yeah, the problem with being paid in tokens. Your AIP was for $ 300 K to be paid out in $APE. On the day of the payment, they would/should have paid out the equivalent of $APE, which “late last night” was probably during the major dip to around $ 1 . 45 . It’s gone up again, though. So, maybe hold it for a day or so before cashing out?
ape-go-up 941 × 426 44 . 7 KB
@AmericanApe congrats on the progress. Where is the best place to track complete progress on all th…
@AmericanApe congrats on the progress. Where is the best place to track complete progress on all this? I find the ApeCoin forum to be very tedious for that kind of thing. Will you be posting updates on your Twitter?
