Irvin Steve C.
In this paper we take a trip back in time and into the present to revisit the notion and concept of a blockchain, both from a technical and socioeconomic perspective. We further discuss some of the ongoing trends and narratives in hopes of enabling the BAYC and ApeCoin DAO community to make a more informed decision towards: (1) the notion of an “ApeChain”, as well as (2) decisions regarding the blockchain infrastructure that powers the ApeCoin DAO community endeavors. Overall, this paper makes a best effort to use concise terminology and leverages layman terms and analogies which the reader may relate to. Further commentary is welcomed and any missing details or pieces of information may have been omitted unintentionally or is explicitly stated in the text. Towards the end we present a set of unaddressed visions on a blockchain infrastructure for the ApeCoin DAO ecosystem, in particular we open the discussion on a multi-chain ecosystem and the prospects of network ApeChain Network of Chains rather than a single ApeChain and or perhaps initially leveraging existing Layer 2 blockchain networks.
In its present form, decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), face various problems. These are problems that are often related to coordination, agency, cognitive bias, and in particular issues related to information asymmetry. Information asymmetry refers to the disproportionate level of information each participant within the organization has. In an ideal scenario, all participants in the organization should possess similar levels of information which may then lead to optimal decision making; we use the term “may” to highlight that other factors may be involved which prevent the organization from reaching optimality.
An optimal state in decision making within the organization can hence be deemed a type of collective intelligence — wisdom of the crowds, this is lightly demonstrated during the voting phase of the DAO’s Ape Improvement Proposals (AIPs). Nonetheless, information asymmetry and the lack of feedback loops can hamper attempts at achieving collective intelligence. Therefore leaving DAO members subject to confirmation bias of the most popular decision.
Overall, inadequate information sharing can lead to adverse outcomes for both the information poor, the information rich and the DAO as a whole. Various examples of the latter can be found in existing and defunct decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols that implement token-based on-chain governance. In a separate paper we provided further context on the latter.
Therefore, this paper hopes to shed a light into some of the considerations ApeCoin DAO members should have a in mind when voting for the initial blockchain infrastructure that power the DAO’s endeavors.
The issue with voting towards a blockchain infrastructure for the ApeCoin DAO’s endeavors is that the information required is not uni-dimensional (single dimension) but rather multi-dimensional. Understanding the implications and consequences of what is now referred to as an ApeChain requires both horizontal information (breadth) and vertical levels of information (depth). Horizontal information refers to understanding the landscape of the Web3 industry, the ecosystem participants, the narratives, trends, business opportunities and overall any discussion in the Web3 space that bridges into the traditional world. Vertical information refers to understanding the technology and topics with enough depth to either (1) inquire further or (2) advance the conversation on particular decisions, and or (3) provide the organization (the DAO) with enough tools and knowledge to make an informed decision.
One might say that there’s also a temporal dimension that must be considered — meaning, having historical context of the decisions made in the web3 space, the successes, the failures, and methodologies could equip DAO members with enough context to make better decisions. For example, having context or experience on how a new blockchain network is launched and what is expected of the first few months can help set expectations.
With various failed and unproductive attempts at the development of a “gaming and culture” focused blockchain infrastructure, we can conclude that attracting products and users to a blockchain infrastructure is not simply a technology problem, but also: (1) an onboarding, (2) distribution and (3) usability problem. We further discuss this in a later section of the paper. Innovation is required both at the technology layer and business layer.
Fundamentally, to attract traditional business or application we must: (1) clearly understand the use case, (2) value proposition and (3) requirements of particular businesses or applications looking to leverage the ApeChain blockchain. Most importantly, to re-iterate, we must understand that pioneering such infrastructure will require innovation both at the business level and technology level. In either case, if we are not innovating and trying something new, is it even worth doing?
This paper narrates key concepts and ideas in the web3 space and provides light historical context, with the goal of reducing information asymmetry in the collective (the DAO). Our hope is that this paper will push forward the discussion around a blockchain infrastructure for the ApeCoin ecosystem, and or lead to more productive discussions.