So my name is Mantis, and I want my name to be Stuart for WG 0 .
Why do I deserve to be a Stuart? Let’s give you a huge runaround instead of being a real man and doing a tl;dr :joy:
There’s a lot of stuff I don’t agree with concerning AIP- 196 . But for some reason, the community voted for that and against Apecomms, when the Venn diagram of AIP- 196 and Apecomms has more overlap than you think.
Don’t believe me? All 3 of the SC appointed WG 0 Stewards, @adventurousape, @Waabam and @Amplify, are members of Apecomms. They’ve been working closely with @BoredApeG and @Gerry, the two new SC electees that have both given fairly unfettered support to the RFP-driven Cartan-replacement process.
Nothing against the appointees or electees, by the way. I may not agree with this or that, but a vote’s a vote. Stating facts to make a point.
So why would the community [read: the WHALES] vote up AIP- 196 and vote down Apecomms? It’s the same group with the same philosophy, which you have to assume will trend towards the same outcomes — especially if they achieve a monopoly on pertinent information like legal constraints and operational bottlenecks. Anyone outside of this group with an alternative idea can be quickly minimized based on a hidden point of order with the potential to be wielded by insiders like a concealed switchblade.
Again, not being accusatory. But with a structure like this, it is possible for this scenario to occur. Web 3 is not about electing people who won’t take advantage of their advantage. It’s about moving to a reality in which it is impossible for an unfair advantage to occur.
Whale communities elected the new SC, and whales caused the failure of Apecomms. Whales who never discoursed on Discourse, by the way. They just showed up whenever they felt like and swung the vote. We don’t know if they considered the quite nuanced discussions Apes were having in Discourse and Discord or not.
News flash: They’re probably not. Seeing as the ones that did these things didn’t even take the time to get into the private $APE DAO Discord, and they’re not participating in the WG 0 Discord now (there’s > 100 people in there). Should I call them spoiled? I’ll refrain, because they don’t even participate enough for me to know that. Other than @machi, their motives are honestly a mystery.
So we’ve got a developing political hierarchy on one side and a disconnected group of possibly spoiled whales on another, and no North Star to guide either of them. This is garbage.
Enter Stuart.
Other than random drunkenness, a possible reason that disconnected whales voted up a centralization-focused SC and voted down an Apecomms from the same Venn overlap: The whales are much more idealistic than the poors about creating a trustless, tech-driven DAO that can resist political attack. The whales can think this way. They don’t need DAO jobs. Heck, they don’t even need to read AIPs before voting them down.
(The other reason: SC was a multiple choice test; Apecomms was a yes or no question.)
The poors want DAO jobs. The poors need their projects funded. The poors aren’t incentivized towards trustlessness or tech because that reduces the opportunities the poors have to work a salaried position for ApeDAO.
Mantis is neither the poors nor the whales.
Mantis the Stuart can function as disinterested connective tissue between the mangled, tragically dashed fragments of the Apecoin DAO, disinterestedly (is that a word?) finding compromise between its major groups, willing, praying and compromising it together into the Six Million Dollar Man.
We have the technology. We can rebuild him.
Digging into the weeds:
I will not oppose the RFP process. I will fight to ensure minimal responsibilities for the Foundation administrator and work towards trustless alternatives (e.g. Otonomos, Cartan-in-a-box)
1 a. Nobody’s getting away with any language in Foundation founding documents or Ecosystem Working Group docs that accrues power to positions instead of processes. Future proofing the DAO starts from WG 0 .
All founding documents are to be made public. I already pitched that idea here. Didn’t get much attention, but I think it’s important. Transparency and all that.
We create an ecosystem culture that closes the gap between the whales and the poors. Incentives are horribly misaligned here, but we can align them around ideas. For one, why are we paying Coinbase Prime $ 1 M/year to house the Treasury instead of EARNING 30 - 100 % APR in Uniswap, BendDAO, Sushiswap, etc.? I know; I know. The legal stuff. Well actually, there’s a solution for that. Let’s all gather round the campfire and come to a consensus on the easy stuff, like FUNDING PROJCTS FROM YIELD INSTEAD OF PRINCIPAL REDUCES RISK TO 0 SO WE CAN FUND THE REALLY CRAZY ART STUFF LIKE WE WANT TO.
My name’s Mantis. Make my name Stuart like a boss. —> Click here & vote for me.
The author, Mantis, argues for changing their name to Stuart in a web governance community and presents a detailed analysis of the community dynamics and decision-making processes. They critique the overlap between two groups, describe the influence of whales in decision-making processes, and propose themselves as a potential mediator to bridge the divide between different factions within the community. Mantis/Stuart lays out their vision for trustless governance, transparency, and aligning incentives within the ecosystem. They seek support for their candidacy in the web governance community.
BoredApeG: Mantis:
Nothing against the appointees or electees, by the way. I may not agree with this or that, but a vote’s a vote. Stating facts to make a point.
I’m going to stick to the facts being left out here…As per AIP-196 approved by the DAO, appointment of 3 stewards by SC were from a pool of Trust Level 3 (Regular) member applicants. You were in fact among those who was eligible to apply for appointment. However, you (along with other TL3 individuals that were non-ApeComms) did not apply. Therefore, 7 of the 8 applications we received were from individuals who were ApeComms members. Meaning, just by the pure numbers at least 2/3 were going to be ApeComms members, and it ended up 3/3 because of the merit of the applications.
Speaking for myself, I was looking forward to your application in the appointment phase, but it did not come though. In any case, I wish you the best of luck through the election process.
Mantis:
Nothing against the appointees or electees, by the way. I may not agree with this or t…
Mantis:
Nothing against the appointees or electees, by the way. I may not agree with this or that, but a vote’s a vote. Stating facts to make a point.
I’m going to stick to the facts being left out here…As per AIP- 196 approved by the DAO, appointment of 3 stewards by SC were from a pool of Trust Level 3 (Regular) member applicants. You were in fact among those who was eligible to apply for appointment. However, you (along with other TL 3 individuals that were non-ApeComms) did not apply. Therefore, 7 of the 8 applications we received were from individuals who were ApeComms members. Meaning, just by the pure numbers at least 2 / 3 were going to be ApeComms members, and it ended up 3 / 3 because of the merit of the applications.
Speaking for myself, I was looking forward to your application in the appointment phase, but it did not come though. In any case, I wish you the best of luck through the election process.
Mantis: BoredApeG:
Speaking for myself, I was looking forward to your application in the appointment phase, but it did not come though. In any case, I wish you the best of luck through the election process.
I appreciate this. I did put in my app on time, but I told @badteeth that I’m not submitting for appointment, only election. I am 100% against SC appointing 3 Stuarts; I believe it promotes the same thing we fired Cartan for. Full disclosure for everyone reading.
Of course I knew the pool would consist of a lot of Apecomms, but the fact is, it IS an insider group that has gated information. All I’m saying is we must crack that nut.
ssp1111:
I would sincerely vote for you as a checks-and-balances vote, but have reservations about any impact in proposals and voting a single voice might have in an equally-weighted ballot system - if that’s how the stewardship works.
I do not want to be a single voice. I want to integrate my views with that of the other Stuarts and SC even though I might disagree with them. I believe I will serve as a check against centralization, as you said. I will always be looking for solutions that have not been discussed to ensure that when votes are cast, the final tally shows the result of an informed body.
ssp1111:
I’m also wondering how you plan on juggling both a stewardship and the mighty collection of ideas you propose of which, I am truly looking forward to the Degen Prop House for my own AIPs. Timing already tight as is .
Ideas are just that — ideas. Once they’ve been expressed, they require no time until the DAO empowers their execution. Ape Hostels, Bluetail don’t take any time — the whitepapers are already written. DPH is different because the promo I’m doing there is relevant to WG0. For instance, the LexDAO focus group last week was for DPH, but primarily to showcase an option to the DAO for community legal services. Give people options so maybe we don’t rely so much on Fenwick. The focus group tomorrow with Nexus and PlannerDAO is also relevant to WG0. Hopefully the WG sees other opportunities for the Treasury than just handing the multisig to the administrator.
These are big conversations, but I want to get them started now so nothing in the language of the documents or the culture of the Ecosystem groups precludes standing up these kinds of integrated, decentralized structures. I’m researching the Cartan-in-a-box service Otonomos. @Amplify knows about this, but does SC or the Stuarts? It could be a way to help minimize administrator duties a bit. I don’t want to be the only one thinking about stuff like this. It must be brought to the table.
ssp1111:
(Go on, hit me back)
Man, I want to be friends and do amazing stuff with Ape IRL Events! LFG!
Mantis, whenever you (and Waabam) mention Stuarts I think of the reign of the Stuarts in English hi…
Mantis, whenever you (and Waabam) mention Stuarts I think of the reign of the Stuarts in English history?. A little story of my own from the history books, mostly for my fellow historians:
Stuarts were generally not good for the poors or gentry and were overthrown by Oliver Cromwell in the civil war of the 1600 ’s over taxes, property, governance and increased accrual of power (the King had disbanded Parliament) – so perhaps, you would be more of an Oliver Cromwell than a Stuart in this narrative. He won the war (on his 2 nd try), King Charles was executed, and his son exiled.
However, although Cromwell did manage (he denied any kingship) the Commonwealth of England for a decade, after he died no-one could govern the country and the populous realized that they needed both a king and parliament to run the nation so they brought back the King’s son from exile and propped up the new Parliament.
What does this have to do with your nomination? Nothing really, mostly entertainment, but I am hopeful that someone with your passion for decentralization is part of the conversation moving forward.
I would sincerely vote for you as a checks-and-balances vote, but have reservations about any impact in proposals and voting a single voice might have in an equally-weighted ballot system - if that’s how the stewardship works.
I’m also wondering how you plan on juggling both a stewardship and the mighty collection of ideas you propose of which, I am truly looking forward to the Degen Prop House for my own AIPs. Timing already tight as is :grimacing:.
Good luck with the campaign, be a Steward not a Stuart (they get overthrown or executed), and keep the decentralization fight alive.
(Go on, hit me back)
Cheers
SSP :v:t 4 :
Mantis: BoredApeG:
Speaking for myself, I was looking forward to your application in the appointment phase, but it did not come though. In any case, I wish you the best of luck through the election process.
I appreciate this. I did put in my app on time, but I told @badteeth that I’m not submitting for appointment, only election. I am 100% against SC appointing 3 Stuarts; I believe it promotes the same thing we fired Cartan for. Full disclosure for everyone reading.
Of course I knew the pool would consist of a lot of Apecomms, but the fact is, it IS an insider group that has gated information. All I’m saying is we must crack that nut.
ssp1111:
I would sincerely vote for you as a checks-and-balances vote, but have reservations about any impact in proposals and voting a single voice might have in an equally-weighted ballot system - if that’s how the stewardship works.
I do not want to be a single voice. I want to integrate my views with that of the other Stuarts and SC even though I might disagree with them. I believe I will serve as a check against centralization, as you said. I will always be looking for solutions that have not been discussed to ensure that when votes are cast, the final tally shows the result of an informed body.
ssp1111:
I’m also wondering how you plan on juggling both a stewardship and the mighty collection of ideas you propose of which, I am truly looking forward to the Degen Prop House for my own AIPs. Timing already tight as is .
Ideas are just that — ideas. Once they’ve been expressed, they require no time until the DAO empowers their execution. Ape Hostels, Bluetail don’t take any time — the whitepapers are already written. DPH is different because the promo I’m doing there is relevant to WG0. For instance, the LexDAO focus group last week was for DPH, but primarily to showcase an option to the DAO for community legal services. Give people options so maybe we don’t rely so much on Fenwick. The focus group tomorrow with Nexus and PlannerDAO is also relevant to WG0. Hopefully the WG sees other opportunities for the Treasury than just handing the multisig to the administrator.
These are big conversations, but I want to get them started now so nothing in the language of the documents or the culture of the Ecosystem groups precludes standing up these kinds of integrated, decentralized structures. I’m researching the Cartan-in-a-box service Otonomos. @Amplify knows about this, but does SC or the Stuarts? It could be a way to help minimize administrator duties a bit. I don’t want to be the only one thinking about stuff like this. It must be brought to the table.
ssp1111:
(Go on, hit me back)
Man, I want to be friends and do amazing stuff with Ape IRL Events! LFG!
BoredApeG:
Speaking for myself, I was looking forward to your application in the appointment p…
BoredApeG:
Speaking for myself, I was looking forward to your application in the appointment phase, but it did not come though. In any case, I wish you the best of luck through the election process.
I appreciate this. I did put in my app on time, but I told @badteeth that I’m not submitting for appointment, only election. I am 100 % against SC appointing 3 Stuarts; I believe it promotes the same thing we fired Cartan for. Full disclosure for everyone reading.
Of course I knew the pool would consist of a lot of Apecomms, but the fact is, it IS an insider group that has gated information. All I’m saying is we must crack that nut.
ssp 1111 :
I would sincerely vote for you as a checks-and-balances vote, but have reservations about any impact in proposals and voting a single voice might have in an equally-weighted ballot system - if that’s how the stewardship works.
I do not want to be a single voice. I want to integrate my views with that of the other Stuarts and SC even though I might disagree with them. I believe I will serve as a check against centralization, as you said. I will always be looking for solutions that have not been discussed to ensure that when votes are cast, the final tally shows the result of an informed body.
ssp 1111 :
I’m also wondering how you plan on juggling both a stewardship and the mighty collection of ideas you propose of which, I am truly looking forward to the Degen Prop House for my own AIPs. Timing already tight as is :grimacing:.
Ideas are just that — ideas. Once they’ve been expressed, they require no time until the DAO empowers their execution. Ape Hostels, Bluetail don’t take any time — the whitepapers are already written. DPH is different because the promo I’m doing there is relevant to WG 0 . For instance, the LexDAO focus group last week was for DPH, but primarily to showcase an option to the DAO for community legal services. Give people options so maybe we don’t rely so much on Fenwick. The focus group tomorrow with Nexus and PlannerDAO is also relevant to WG 0 . Hopefully the WG sees other opportunities for the Treasury than just handing the multisig to the administrator.
These are big conversations, but I want to get them started now so nothing in the language of the documents or the culture of the Ecosystem groups precludes standing up these kinds of integrated, decentralized structures. I’m researching the Cartan-in-a-box service Otonomos. @Amplify knows about this, but does SC or the Stuarts? It could be a way to help minimize administrator duties a bit. I don’t want to be the only one thinking about stuff like this. It must be brought to the table.
ssp 1111 :
(Go on, hit me back)
Man, I want to be friends and do amazing stuff with Ape IRL Events! LFG!
Mantis:
Man, I want to be friends and do amazing stuff with Ape IRL Events! LFG!
Decentraliz…
Mantis:
Man, I want to be friends and do amazing stuff with Ape IRL Events! LFG!
Decentralized IRL Events Network - LFG!
By the way, why you still wanna be a Stuart given their place in history? :laughing:
I just found that out because of you, and I’d have to go back and change every Stuart! I’m trying t…
I just found that out because of you, and I’d have to go back and change every Stuart! I’m trying to get some sleep before the Mission Statement Group in WG 0 ! :rofl:
Political culture plays the roles here, friends elect friends. Mantis, I am very proud you that you…
Political culture plays the roles here, friends elect friends. Mantis, I am very proud you that you speak out. DAO like this kind will eventually corrupt and collapse. IMO, Ken
This is the most your vote has ever counted in any ApeCoin vote ever. 1 wallet = 1 vote.
This is the most your vote has ever counted in any ApeCoin vote ever. 1 wallet = 1 vote.
Apeancestor: People can create multiple wallets, so it is kind of flawed voting system. IMO, honestly!
TheFatherOfAllStorms: People already forgot that proposals can go per wallet versus per coin quantity.
And thats this election fall in large.
People feel powerless.
Congratulations…?
People can create multiple wallets, so it is kind of flawed voting system. IMO, honestly!
People can create multiple wallets, so it is kind of flawed voting system. IMO, honestly!
Yea… me too.
I talked to 5 lawyers… the are in …ng shock.
Legally there is a tangible believe tha…
Yea… me too.
I talked to 5 lawyers… the are in …ng shock.
Legally there is a tangible believe that that AIP passing legally through newly elected councils goes absolutely agains foundation and it legal process, It should never be put to vote in the first place! Plus some people are not vetted at all. And even if they nice people - sorry but i think some should resign immediately, because they putting themselves and foundation into very bad legal territory.
This is also missing the crucial VOTE per INDIVIDUAL structure, meaning per physical person. No entity, or DAO or Shadow voting should be taken place, meaning there should be long voting period (so no credits without punishment could be taken) , several snapshots across time periods and KYC votes to prevent the DARK DAOs from participating.
I have a feeling there is a rule braking as well as missing the opportunity of voting for AIPs per wallet versus coin quantities to avoid favourites suport.
All stewards and councils should have full disclosure of their finance, do not take any backpay from the proposing AIPs, do not participate in their creation while hired as well as not promote any on any social media or here.
Saying that something is “cool” while you bare hired by the DAO is considered favouritism, so avoid to try cheer all of us.
There is also a misunderstanding of “focus groups” and “working groups”
The ideas that I was talking about on spaces during my nomination were not what you made it from it.
Meaning next:
“Focus group” - officially payed group of individuals to see what would work for them for voting or onboarding or participating at any means.
“working groups” - actually legally hired individuals that are certified professional in their field that can consult councils.
Current ent councils - remember of your legal responsibilities and the representation for this DAO.
You can NOT delegate your administrative work - because that is what you was hired for. And if you cant do it - you should not be payed for that or have much more councils. Sorry if you have other jobs or promised others to push their proposals. This is not how it works. We mind continue having useless proposals the mind go against principals itself.
We need a bigger team of Councils with different backgrounds and certifications.
Apeancestor: TheFatherOfAllStorms:
sorry but i think some should resign immediately,
Are you working currently for ApeCoin DAO? If yes, you are basically saying, the DAO has wrongly hired some employees for the job!
Anyhow, not much you can do about them either if they perform their job poorly. Sorry to hear that!
Apeancestor: TheFatherOfAllStorms:
All stewards and councils should have full disclosure of their finance, do not take any backpay from the proposing AIPs,
That’s another problem, power, money, and corruption inside the ApeCoin DAO. Of course, it is obvious!
Apeancestor: TheFatherOfAllStorms:
Current ent councils - remember of your legal responsibilities and the representation for this DAO.
You can NOT delegate your administrative work - because that is what you was hired for. And if you cant do it - you should not be payed for that or have much more councils.
IMO, the SC job description was poorly defined, the job responsibilities were so vague. Not to mention legal responsibilities. I think there No such clause about legal responsibilities or representation.
Ask yourself a question. What roles you have? Who has the right to let go people who just do minimum and get a well paid job?
People already forgot that proposals can go per wallet versus per coin quantity.
And thats this ele…
People already forgot that proposals can go per wallet versus per coin quantity.
And thats this election fall in large.
People feel powerless.
Congratulations…?
TheFatherOfAllStorms:
sorry but i think some should resign immediately,
Are you working curr…
TheFatherOfAllStorms:
sorry but i think some should resign immediately,
Are you working currently for ApeCoin DAO? If yes, you are basically saying, the DAO has wrongly hired some employees for the job!
Anyhow, not much you can do about them either if they perform their job poorly. Sorry to hear that!
TheFatherOfAllStorms:
All stewards and councils should have full disclosure of their finance, …
TheFatherOfAllStorms:
All stewards and councils should have full disclosure of their finance, do not take any backpay from the proposing AIPs,
That’s another problem, power, money, and corruption inside the ApeCoin DAO. Of course, it is obvious!
TheFatherOfAllStorms:
Current ent councils - remember of your legal responsibilities and the r…
TheFatherOfAllStorms:
Current ent councils - remember of your legal responsibilities and the representation for this DAO.
You can NOT delegate your administrative work - because that is what you was hired for. And if you cant do it - you should not be payed for that or have much more councils.
IMO, the SC job description was poorly defined, the job responsibilities were so vague. Not to mention legal responsibilities. I think there No such clause about legal responsibilities or representation.
Ask yourself a question. What roles you have? Who has the right to let go people who just do minimum and get a well paid job?
Yes, one APE one vote. So if you have 10 mil APE in your wallet, you will be elected to serve as …
Yes, one APE one vote. So if you have 10 mil APE in your wallet, you will be elected to serve as SC. Everybody understands that. No mistake. Doing a wonderful job and power voting (one dollar one vote) is a horrible mix. IMO.
Apeancestor: Maybe it is a good idea that someone who is currently working for the ApeCoin DAO creates an organizational chart with all the paid employees and their positions. Make it publicly available for comments. IMO, it might reinforce that position and his/her duties as employee!
For example, I don’t even know if you are currently working for the ApeCoin DAO or just regular members. Your comments and my comments are pretty much meaningless !
