Add "RISKS & CHALLENGES" Section into the AIP Proposal Template

Add “RISKS & CHALLENGES” Section into the AIP Proposal Template

Category: Process

Incorporate a ‘RISKS & CHALLENGES’ section into the AIP Template. It’ll enhance transparency, help us prep better, and ensure the ApeCoin community makes well-informed decisions.

Written by @shotgun.tobi

Almost any proposal, no matter how beneficial, carries inherent risks. By proactively addressing these risks, we not only prepare ourselves for potential challenges but also make more informed decisions, ensuring the longevity and resilience of the ApeCoin ecosystem.

This will help improve transparency as well as collective responsibility of the DAO.


  • AIP Authors will be encouraged to think critically about potential roadblocks, ensuring a more thorough proposal preparation.
  • The DAO can make more informed decisions when voting, knowing both the benefits and potential pitfalls of an initiative.
  • Proactive identification of risks will allow for better resource allocation and contingency planning, ensuring smoother project execution.

This AIP requires changes on the ApeCoin Discourse forum and changes in the template used when posting AIPs to Snapshot.

The AIP Draft Template should be edited to include a section entitled “Risks & Challenges”. This new section of the AIP Draft template should come after “Rationale” and before "Benefits to the ApeCoin Ecosystem”.

This new section will also be included on Snapshot each time an AIP goes to vote. This section on Snapshot should come prior to the “Overall Cost” section.

(1) The ApeCoin DAO’s Discourse Facilitators are instructed to edit the following Discourse posts to include a section entitled “Risks & Challenges”–

In the AIP Draft Template Breakdown post, the “Risks &Challenges” section should be section number 7, and the sections following should be re-numbered accordingly. The section should include the following as a brief description of what is expected in that section:

Explain the risks & challenges that you or ApeCoin DAO might face should your proposal be passed. Include potential actions or contingency plans that could be taken in response to these.

(2) The Administrators responsible for posting AIPs to Snapshot are instructed to include the “Risks & Challenges” on Snapshot each time an AIP goes to vote. This section should come prior to the “Overall Cost” section.

This AIP can be implemented within 1-2 days of the AIP being approved by the DAO.


As a grant system, not an investment or revenue vehicle, I am not entirely sure why this would be needed.

Also, it also has the potential to stymie AIP creators who then have to, literally make stuff up. e,g. a creator just making art (see @AnnieRawrz) will have difficulty coming up with data for this. What risks and challenges would she put? "I might die or my house could burn down or I could run out of Red ink? :rofl:

I do get the intent, but this sort of disclaimer is almost never found in grant data - which some of us have done over the years.


That is true - I see what you mean! I think that would apply for the Risks aspect of it, but I think even as a Grant system, it’s necessary to capture potential challenges to be faced. It’s aimed more towards transparency and ensuring a full picture of the proposal is painted - challenges included - instead of pure upsides and benefits.

And for simple AIPs like Annie’s with minimal to no risks/challenges- they can simply indicate there are none. :slight_smile:


In grants - like investments - Force Majeur is implicit.

Anyway, I don’t think this solves any problem other than to unreasonably burden creators. The voting system is bad enough already, and the last thing we need is another thing that would ultimately stifle it because “Ape go down!” :rofl:

1 Like

This is a good idea, most business proposals have sections where you have to identify the potential risks or/and challenges.

So it makes sense that if people are asking for a chunk of the funds, they show they are aware of the risks that the plan the propose might fail and hopefully show how they would mitigate those risks.

ie. creating an NFT marketplace, the risks would be the competition, smart contract vulnerabilities, potential lack of users, ect.


I do see the benefits of showing you know what risks/challenges there are in whatever you’re trying to do, ideally, someone would mention risks & show they have thought how to tackle those if or when they appear.

It’s impractical. Let’s say there’s a game AIP, how do you propose they actually explain the risks & challenges? It’s impossible. Not to mention that the concept is completely foreign to us devs.

Throwing up questionable & burdensome barriers is a non-starter if we want to encourage builders.


It’s impractical. Let’s say there’s a game AIP, how do you propose they actually explain the risks & challenges? It’s impossible.

It’s not impossible, but definitely not difficult & very practical to get a sense of the potential challenges. Similar to architecting any type of system or technology, someone in the tech team would be thinking about the risks and what needs to be done to make sure they are mitigated.

Not to mention that the concept is completely foreign to us devs.

Yes for a dev that purely focuses on technical without delving into the business side, then yeah I can see why you would say that, but usually most team would be made up of people from different disciplines to make sure as many unknowns are covered ie. Marketing, Business Development, Tech, etc.

Just take a look at this AIP Idea where they have a section for Potential Challenges and Mitigation AIP Idea: The Boring Artists Agency: Bringing Billions of Dollars’ Worth of Game Dev and Publishing Talent to Web3 - Powered by ApeCoin

Throwing up questionable & burdensome barriers is a non-starter if we want to encourage builders.

Agreed, throwing up questionable & burdensome barriers wouldn’t help. These time taken to discuss challenges they think they might come up against helps answer questions the community would probably have and will help someone really think through the proposal & maybe find some gaps they may have overseen otherwise.

Anyway, good to discuss our differences in ideas, I hope that I got my point across about having a diverse team. & I definitely agree, for a dev this would be a hassle, but with a built-up team someone else more business-orientated could focus on this & leave the devs to build :grin:

1 Like

Actually, it doesn’t work like that in software and tech. And in large corps, there are specific teams and depts (e.g. risk assessment, compliance etc) that do this, but on a broader scale. In smaller and insulated teams, it’s non-existent.

Most teams are not setup to have any of those. e.g. I don’t have anyone doing bizdev at either of my studios. Why would I need that? Marketing is done by third-party teams who are hired to do that.

Thanks for making my point.

That section, hyperbole aside, is completely subjective and opinionated. Here, I will save you the click to make my point.

Nothing against Simon ofc, but since you used that example, here is what I see.

Operative terms: “we believe”, “de-risk this even further”.

Operative terms: “misinformation”, “we believe”, “regardless of the platform or business model”

Operative terms: “dismissive”, “industry shifts”, “successfully onboarding”

As a publisher, distributor and gamedev veteran, even though the AIP is from a publishing perspective, I don’t see an explanation of the “Risks & Challenges” to a software project. In fact, Simon inadvertently put some of that in the first half of the abstract section.

The point that I am making here is that adding a burdensome section such as this AIP, serves no tangible or reasonable purpose. It will just waste time, cause obfuscation of facts, introduce hyperbole and soothsaying, and detract from the core of the AIP; which is to come up with a compelling AIP that’s worthy of a grant. Not to mention that with our current voting system such as it is, coupled with that whole “Apes don’t read” gag, and you end up an inconsequential and onerous section.

That said, even as an optional section (there are a few such sections in the current AIP draft template), most will just skip it. I can absolutely guarantee it. I know I most certainly will. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Take a look at any number of AIPs that have gone through here, and it would be immediately obvious that a large number of them wouldn’t be able to provide responsive answers to such a section. At least not without making stuff up.

In fact, most AIPs already inadvertently mention the risks and challenges. For example, everyone already knows that my voting reform AIP-318 is definitely going to fail. I don’t have a risks & challenges section, but there are various parts (regarding whales, power etc) that clearly show the risks & challenges of getting it passed.

I think that most people are already aware of the risks & challenges of doing anything. The question is whether or not they want to share something that is likely to raise questions about their AIP and it’s success or fail ratio. There are entire studies about speaking and writing proposals, grants etc. And most of them specifically warn about not raising Red flags yourself because the chances are slim to none that most will even see what you see - or chose to hide or reveal. Writing a proposal, investment deck, resume etc. all have the same principle about what to say, when, and how.

Have you seen my game AIP-316? Do you know the single point of failure in that project and which I would never put in a risks & challenges section? That if I get run over by a bus, die etc. that the project ends. Every single game (of which there are 3, incl the in-progress Netflix one) in dev needs me from start to finish. Once finished, the risk is alleviated. In comparison to Simon’s AIP, which is publisher and gaming (sort of) related, the other risks are that the pre-existing Web2 gamers get so upset at me, that they rebel (by not buying the game, trashing it etc.) because I added Web3 elements to the re-release of the game, the gaming media trashes it for the same reason etc. There are lots of issues that can make the project fail and which have nothing to do with the use of $APE and for which the grant was given. You know why such things have no place in a risks & challenges section of most projects? Because Force Majeure is totally a thing - and it’s implicit.

To be clear. I am NOT against accountability (don’t even get me started on that. lol) or transparency. My point is that modifying the AIP draft template to include a largely inconsequential , questionable and burdensome barrier isn’t beneficial to anyone. Aside from the fact that, as a voting based grant system, most won’t even care either way because they tend to just vote without even understanding, let alone reading, the AIP. So, there’s that. heh.

Great discussion to have though. Definitely.


Damn, ok that was a lot of reading, appreciate you responding to each point so meticulously :sweat_smile: Those are fair points, some I didn’t take into account & after reading them, being able to see & rethink from a different POV you do make a lot of sense.

I do definitely agree that there must be a large % of people who skip the entire AIP draft & simply read the title + TLDR :joy:

Agreed, great discussion to have, especially when we can go back & fourth in a respectful way. You have won me over to your POV @SmartAPE :handshake:

1 Like

@lilchichi.eth Thanks for reading all that. I do tend to be pretty verbose about things that I am passionate about. :rofl:

To be clear - and as I stated earlier - I do understand the motivation behind this AIP. My only issue with it is that it serves no tangible purpose, even if it were an optional section in the AIP draft.

Healthy discussions are how we learn - even if they are ones that we don’t agree with. :handshake:


GM @SmartAPE @lilchichi.eth! Appreciate all the thoughts and perspectives shared!

Like the thread category - this is just an AIP Idea and I did post this to hear more of the community’s thoughts. :grinning:


This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.

Hi @shotgun.tobi,

Thank you for your ideas [and the ApeCoin DAO community for the insightful discussions]. A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft using the appropriate template. In accordance with DAO-approved guidelines, if the author doesn’t respond within 30 days, the proposal will be automatically transferred to the Withdrawn category, and the author can re-submit the idea. Once the AIP is Drafted and meets all DAO-approved guidelines, it will be published on Snapshot for the official live voting phase at: Snapshot.

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments. @shotgun.tobi please see your messages for the next steps.


Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

This Topic has been rejected based on the DAO-approved guidelines due to no response in the last 30 days. The Topic may be submitted again by any user and upon approval, will be open for 7 days for community discussions.

This Topic will move and remain in the Withdrawn AIPs category.