I think I’ve seen this proposed before, but lets see where this discussion lands.
However, I think the problem will only continue to get worse. Sybil attacks are annoying. The most commonly held amount of ApeCoin is 1 .x - 2 x.
It is hard to reasonably assume DAO membership from dust in a wallet.
Sybil attacks on every layer of the DAO ecosystem are occurring all the time. If someone wanted to create 100 forum accounts, farm reputation/rewards, etc. they could VERY cost effectively do this at try and farm all kinds of rewards through ThankApe, BSec, Thrivecoin, and weaken our ability to perform Sybil defense in the future with all these botted accounts forming.
Q: So, why 10 ApeCoin then?
A: Sybil defense is a spectrum, and we need to be very careful with turning the dial too far in one direction. By making the DAO membership across the board cost 10 , membership becomes about the cost of 1 dinner in an average OECD country.
I don’t believe this will materially diminish anyone’s ability to participate in the DAO who really wants to, and it may at least slow the onslaught of bots, and let on-chain analysis check who the members are, and who just had a ton of bots airdrop farming, or potentially sybiling our DAO system in hopes for potential rewards in the future, or actual rewards in the present.
The post discusses the issue of Sybil attacks within a DAO ecosystem, particularly focusing on the cost of ApeCoin to join the DAO as a means of defense against these attacks. The writer suggests increasing the cost of ApeCoin to 10 to discourage bot activities and improve the security of the DAO system.
I second this! :saluting_face::handshake:
10 is still a very small number, but better than 1
I second this! :saluting_face::handshake:
10 is still a very small number, but better than 1
The factor of having 10 $APE would not eliminate sybils in my view.
I think interactions will eli…
The factor of having 10 $APE would not eliminate sybils in my view.
I think interactions will eliminate the Sybils.
Because for you to get rewards with ThankApe, you need to interact and do missions, not all of which are that easy to complete, they require some level of user and account legitimacy.
Thanks for bringing up this topic @Feld!
I think the 10 ApeCoin amount would be reasonable as lon…
Thanks for bringing up this topic @Feld!
I think the 10 ApeCoin amount would be reasonable as long as we don’t increase to 100 etc. in the case that sybil attackers rise up to meet the minimum ( 10 ApeCoin is a day’s income in some countries such as the Philippines, which has a heavy web 3 population).
I do wonder how this barrier might impact someone’s ability to contribute if ApeCoin’s price suddenly & sharply rises. Would it make sense to have language analogous to “ 10 ApeCoin or $ 50 , whichever is lower” in the details of the AIP?
-Halina.eth :cherry_blossom:
There are few barriers towards entering the DAO, majority of it being just language barrier. I dont…
There are few barriers towards entering the DAO, majority of it being just language barrier. I dont think increasing the entry point to 10 $ape would stop the attacks. Scammers already have tons of money and getting 10 x 100 more $ape wont make a difference to them but it would create an even tougher entry point for others who are genuinely interested in the DAO or looking to engage with.
I myself started with just 1 $ape and earned more than 2000 + $ape over the past few months, in the way onboarding more people by giving away a decent amount of $ape to artist and friends. 1 to 10 $ape wont change a thing for those who exploit the system but it will ruin the experience for others who genuinely care.
Rubinato: Evil:
There are few barriers towards entering the DAO, majority of it being just language barrier. I dont think increasing the entry point to 10 $ape would stop the attacks. Scammers already have tons of money and getting 10 x100 more $ape wont make a difference to them but it would create an even tougher entry point for others who are genuinely interested in the DAO or looking to engage with.
I myself started with just 1 $ape and earned more than 2000+ $ape over the past few months, in the way onboarding more people by giving away a decent amount of $ape to artist and friends. 1 to 10 $ape wont change a thing for those who exploit the system but it will ruin the experience for others who genuinely care.
I agree @evil.
The language barrier is indeed a factor, but little by little it is being broken, through the work of the members here at the DAO who are always disseminating knowledge and information.
Hey @Feld,
This is an interesting topic, since you left the discussion open to explore… how would w…
Hey @Feld,
This is an interesting topic, since you left the discussion open to explore… how would we feel about a “threshold” for introducing proposals?
We’ve already mirrored some of the structure from the ENS DAO here in our DAO. And it might make sense to add some other structure around this sort of rule…one element that has always felt missing, for me, is some threshold. Since we already have different proposal categories we could trial different levels of this.
For example, verifying ownership of 1 , 000 apecoin, or 1000 delegated apecoin, to submit an ecosystem fund proposal. 10 , 000 apecoin to submit a process proposal, which could impact the fundamental process of the dao.
Here’s some of the relevant ENS docs: https://docs.ens.domains/v/governance/process
MemeBrains: Lost:
For example, verifying ownership of 1,000 apecoin, or 1000 delegated apecoin, to submit an ecosystem fund proposal. 10,000 apecoin to submit a process proposal, which could impact the fundamental process of the dao.
On that note, one interesting thing I noticed CityDAO introduce is a sliding scale mechanism, based on the amount of treasury funds being asked for, and then a support threshold change for charter changes which have the equivalent impact as like you mentioned with process proposals that impact the fundamental processes of the DAO
So, just for community discussion purposes, it could be something like this;
Re Funding related proposals;
1 $APE for any proposal up to a max of $5,000
10 $APE for any proposal up to a max of $20,000
100 $APE for any proposal up to a max of $100,000
1,000 $APE for any proposal up to $500,000
10,000 $APE for any proposal up to $1M
I’m not suggesting these exact number be used, needs more thought, but consider the above as ‘fill-in-the-blank’ to marinate on
Then re process change proposals
Instead of requiring 50% support, moving it up to like 75% support requirement threshold. So basically, requiring a ‘super majority’ type of support in order to change a fundamental process. This is parallel to item #3 in the ENS ‘Types of Proposals’ doc you shared.
Just food for discussion and though, curious what sort of comments or brainstorming this brings up with everyone
furiousanger: Lost:
10,000 apecoin to submit a process proposal
What this quote suggests to me is that one becomes ‘qualified’ to talk about changing a process if they have about £12.5k spare.
Our processes are far from perfect and we need to encourage people to make these suggestions rn - not stifle them by implementing high monetary thresholds imo.
One could also argue that copying ENS DAO has not been that beneficial to “us” so far.
Hey, @Feld We’ve known each other for a long time in Boring Security, I hope you won’t decide that …
Hey, @Feld We’ve known each other for a long time in Boring Security, I hope you won’t decide that I’m Sybil))) But when I came to the forum for the first time, I also had less than $ 5 APE in my wallet. I came here after Boring Security lessons when I was setting up my profile in ThriveCoin. And then I saw the tasks for which they charge $ APE and began to delve into the forum, thanks to them. After I started going deeper, the forum became much more interesting for me, I got to know the DAO in general and the entire apecoin universe more closely. And all thanks to the tasks. but!! If I didn’t know the value of all this in advance, I probably wouldn’t have paid $ 10 APE for membership. Yes, and I could also be considered a sybil, since I had about $ 5 APE
P.s. I am grateful to you and all the members of Boring Security for introducing me to this world, I really like it here.
leyota: We’ve known each other for a long time in Boring Security, I hope you won’t decide that I’m Sybil
A sybil in this particular case is when one person has multiple identities to create the illusion that there are multiple people supporting/against something. In your case, if you have only one identity, there’s no reason you would be considered a sybil. This whole idea revolves around trying to make it harder/more expensive for one person to have multiple identities.
Apecoin is for everyone & one Apecoin is enough to be one person. We should not devaluations it.
It…
Apecoin is for everyone & one Apecoin is enough to be one person. We should not devaluations it.
It is economically bad for any attacker to spread Apecoin plus attackers can not chill (we implemented the amount of minimum words)
Many vote without even have a discourse profile.
The spreading of Apecoin doesn’t affect the total vote power.
Thrivecoin or other coins are not our DAO.
For many countries even 1 Apecoin is a lot to not have it in circulation, this about that somewhere you can have entire meal for 10 cents or be killed for 20 dollars - so no you don’t want no one know that if you in this DAO then you have this 20 dollars somewhere in the wallet.
We all need to stop thinking like everyone is reach.
Some entire pension a month is 15 dollars and some of those people wish they had at list a phone to participate, they don’t and they reach out to non profits and professional helping groups like Dress for Success around the world & more.
We need to stop conversations about locking this public foundation tighter and whales convenient, because it’s end up costing even those mega whales a pretty coin for not thinking.
Evil: Exactly this ^
Majority of people in crypto and NFTs dont like BAYC or apecoin in general. This will be opposite of what we all trying to do, implementing this will be 10 steps backward. So many people currently active in the DAO started with just 1 $ape. Hell… even Axies boosted their fame and adoption from scholars who played it and earned, all from south east Asia where even $1 is more than enough.
I’m just super tired of seeing everything about Apecoin DAO being focused only in USA.
FYI, sybill attack will still exist doesnt matter the entry cost, but it will stop genuine people for sure
I second to this. 10 apecoin is still within reasonable range . I believe this will also help to …
I second to this. 10 apecoin is still within reasonable range . I believe this will also help to close off dummy / dormant members with just 1 apecoin in the wallet
I think for the main apecoin.eth DAO one apecoin is enough, as it is based on the total amount what…
I think for the main apecoin.eth DAO one apecoin is enough, as it is based on the total amount what passes it isn’t an issue.
For things like ThankAPE which are NOT the ApeCoin Dao, as they don’t follow the rules of the Apecoin dao, specifically 1 apecoin = 1 vote, then such a suggestion could be implemented.
So my summary I suggest no change to apecoin.eth voting, but put the 10 APE min on the engagement farming programs.
So my summary I suggest no change to apecoin.eth voting, but put the 10 APE min on the engagemen…
So my summary I suggest no change to apecoin.eth voting, but put the 10 APE min on the engagement farming programs.
I agree with this. Since 1 ape = 1 vote, having tons of 1 votes doesn’t really make a difference.
I like @Lost’s suggestion of raising the bar on introducing proposals but we need to be careful about the number and lean towards being conservative. If the bar is 10 , 000 I doubt we’ll see any newer small holders propose anything. I think we would also see a massive decrease in the number of AIPs. But maybe something like 100 APE across the board might work as a minimum to introduce new proposal.
Here’s another mechanism I’ve heard about but never really seen implemented anywhere: time weighted token balance. So this takes into account how long you’ve held the tokens and gives you a score. We can formulate this to be exponential so that the longer you hold it, the much more power the tokens have. This would purely be used to see if you are eligible to create proposals. This way you can make membership time important. Others can skip this step by just buying more tokens. This gives small holder OGs the same proposal creating power as newer large holders.
Might be too complicated but something to think about.
We’ve known each other for a long time in Boring Security, I hope you won’t decide that I’m Sybil
…
We’ve known each other for a long time in Boring Security, I hope you won’t decide that I’m Sybil
A sybil in this particular case is when one person has multiple identities to create the illusion that there are multiple people supporting/against something. In your case, if you have only one identity, there’s no reason you would be considered a sybil. This whole idea revolves around trying to make it harder/more expensive for one person to have multiple identities.
TheFatherOfAllStorms: If you idea is to lock people out - those will not be your mentioned “whales”, it will be a little man, the smart people versus chill people, those who have no time to chill here every post will phrases “AW MY GOD its so amazing you even posting here…”, holders generally don’t care about whales, companies and MAJOR holders and VCs care about the little guy, what 1 ApeCoin holder wants - because thats the power of the community and that whats counts here. And if community don’t like something - no whales mini group can beat it, no important how much useless rewards promised or spaces shilled with 500 bots vs just 33 listeners (some of them are triple profiles).
If we talk about animal kingdom here again - There is a funny children song for piano players starters - '33 cows". you can sing about them, but cows can BUILD a piano and community are the ones pushing all the buttons. You tell those inspiring token holders to pay 10 times and they will eat all cows.
Exactly this ^
Majority of people in crypto and NFTs dont like BAYC or apecoin in general. This wil…
Exactly this ^
Majority of people in crypto and NFTs dont like BAYC or apecoin in general. This will be opposite of what we all trying to do, implementing this will be 10 steps backward. So many people currently active in the DAO started with just 1 $ape. Hell… even Axies boosted their fame and adoption from scholars who played it and earned, all from south east Asia where even $ 1 is more than enough.
I’m just super tired of seeing everything about Apecoin DAO being focused only in USA.
FYI, sybill attack will still exist doesnt matter the entry cost, but it will stop genuine people for sure
TheFatherOfAllStorms: !exactly. You get my point.
You can already probably find wallets from participants here pretending to be a multiple people, yes that includes those mentioned by someone shark and other animal kingdoms.
Im at a lot of DEFI communities with actual serious builders & there is no “hate”, just most of peope dont even have NFTs or Tweeter, they don’t care, but some have lots of ApeCoin and they DO NOT EVEN STAKE IT TO THE CONTRACT.
I dont think its good idea, because sybil always those whom have alot money, if they can make profi…
I dont think its good idea, because sybil always those whom have alot money, if they can make profit via DAO, the value cannot restrict them.
And as you know, reward only add for the value task, so sybil cant do that.
But if minium request to entry DAO too high, may be we make some PEOPLE behind us bro, its not friendly style
Thanks for putting up this idea @Feld. It’s an interesting discussion and I can see the reasoning t…
Thanks for putting up this idea @Feld. It’s an interesting discussion and I can see the reasoning to both sides.
Sybil attacks are annoying and combatting them takes up the Facilitators and Stewards time where they could be doing more productive things. But I have also heard of quite a few people who became involved with the DAO with less than 10 ApeCoin. Often people will send someone 1 ApeCoin to help them get started in the DAO. I wonder if it is increased to 10 if that would occur less often.
Love the discussion and think @bigbull’s suggestion is interesting, though that might decrease wanted participation through ThankApe, depending on who is onboarded through there. It would be best to look at the data.
!exactly. You get my point.
You can already probably find wallets from participants here pretending…
!exactly. You get my point.
You can already probably find wallets from participants here pretending to be a multiple people, yes that includes those mentioned by someone shark and other animal kingdoms.
Im at a lot of DEFI communities with actual serious builders & there is no “hate”, just most of peope dont even have NFTs or Tweeter, they don’t care, but some have lots of ApeCoin and they DO NOT EVEN STAKE IT TO THE CONTRACT.
If you idea is to lock people out - those will not be your mentioned “whales”, it will be a little …
If you idea is to lock people out - those will not be your mentioned “whales”, it will be a little man, the smart people versus chill people, those who have no time to chill here every post will phrases “AW MY GOD its so amazing you even posting here…”, holders generally don’t care about whales, companies and MAJOR holders and VCs care about the little guy, what 1 ApeCoin holder wants - because thats the power of the community and that whats counts here. And if community don’t like something - no whales mini group can beat it, no important how much useless rewards promised or spaces shilled with 500 bots vs just 33 listeners (some of them are triple profiles).
If we talk about animal kingdom here again - There is a funny children song for piano players starters - ' 33 cows". you can sing about them, but cows can BUILD a piano and community are the ones pushing all the buttons. You tell those inspiring token holders to pay 10 times and they will eat all cows.
Evil:
There are few barriers towards entering the DAO, majority of it being just language barr…
Evil:
There are few barriers towards entering the DAO, majority of it being just language barrier. I dont think increasing the entry point to 10 $ape would stop the attacks. Scammers already have tons of money and getting 10 x 100 more $ape wont make a difference to them but it would create an even tougher entry point for others who are genuinely interested in the DAO or looking to engage with.
I myself started with just 1 $ape and earned more than 2000 + $ape over the past few months, in the way onboarding more people by giving away a decent amount of $ape to artist and friends. 1 to 10 $ape wont change a thing for those who exploit the system but it will ruin the experience for others who genuinely care.
I agree @evil.
The language barrier is indeed a factor, but little by little it is being broken, through the work of the members here at the DAO who are always disseminating knowledge and information.
Lost.Admin - Facilitator, This user is a moderator
Nov. 24, 2023, 8:01 p.m.
Hi @Feld,
The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in less than 24 hours.
…
Hi @Feld,
The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in less than 24 hours.
If you’re content with the feedback received, your next steps are to finalize your proposal using the AIP Draft Template.
A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft. Upon receipt of the final Draft, we will review and provide instructions on the next steps.
Are you ready to proceed to the next phase or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?
We look forward to hearing from you.
-@Facilitators
Lost:
For example, verifying ownership of 1 , 000 apecoin, or 1000 delegated apecoin, to s…
Lost:
For example, verifying ownership of 1 , 000 apecoin, or 1000 delegated apecoin, to submit an ecosystem fund proposal. 10 , 000 apecoin to submit a process proposal, which could impact the fundamental process of the dao.
On that note, one interesting thing I noticed CityDAO introduce is a sliding scale mechanism, based on the amount of treasury funds being asked for, and then a support threshold change for charter changes which have the equivalent impact as like you mentioned with process proposals that impact the fundamental processes of the DAO
So, just for community discussion purposes, it could be something like this;
Re Funding related proposals;
1 $APE for any proposal up to a max of $ 5 , 000
10 $APE for any proposal up to a max of $ 20 , 000
100 $APE for any proposal up to a max of $ 100 , 000
1 , 000 $APE for any proposal up to $ 500 , 000
10 , 000 $APE for any proposal up to $ 1 M
I’m not suggesting these exact number be used, needs more thought, but consider the above as ‘fill-in-the-blank’ to marinate on
Then re process change proposals
Instead of requiring 50 % support, moving it up to like 75 % support requirement threshold. So basically, requiring a ‘super majority’ type of support in order to change a fundamental process. This is parallel to item # 3 in the ENS ‘Types of Proposals’ doc you shared.
Just food for discussion and though, curious what sort of comments or brainstorming this brings up with everyone
bigbull: I also propose this idea, which would be optional to have AIPs suggest they will match funds.
Three choices:
1.They could match by saying they will invest x and we will grant x
2.They will lock x APE and we will grant x APE. E.g. I want 10,000 APE but I will put 10,000 APE locked into a contract for x period of time. They would still get the 10k APE back in say 12 months with rewards.
3. Deposit to a Liquidity Pool (though risk reward and potential impermanent loss needs to be considered) for x period of time.
Thoughts?
