AIP-173: Add new Discourse Category for “Administrative Review”

Proposal name: Add new Discourse Category for “Administrative Review”
Proposal category: Process


In the current format of, it is currently difficult to follow the status of an AIP once it has been sent to the Special Council for Administrative Review. This is between AIP Drafts and Withdrawn AIPs (for returned AIPs) or Live AIPs (if it has been approved to vote). This proposal seeks to add a category on Discourse to easily identify those under Special Council review.


The motivation of this AIP is to provide further clarity on Discourse about the AIPs and the step in which it is in. If an AIP is tagged with Needs Administrative Review, the AIP currently sits in AIP Drafts until it is returned for reconstruction, clarification, or approved to vote.

Adding this new Discourse category will specifically identify those AIPs currently being reviewed by the Special Council.


The rationale is to provide further transparency to the community. The current governance process was approved in AIP-1 and while AIP-7 restructured Discourse to a more user-friendly format and view, it is time to iterate forward again and add a new Discourse category.


This AIP uses the existing Discourse forum at

Steps to Implement

The specific steps to implement would be as follows.

First, the Discourse category would need to be created:

  • Add a new Discourse category
  • Category Name is “Administrative Review”
  • All users can See and Reply to the topics
  • Only moderators can create or move topics into this category
  • Put the category under AIP Drafts and before Final AIPs
  • The description of the category should be as follows: AIPs that have been tagged with Needs Administrative Review for the Special Council to determine if clarification or further actions are required before moving to a vote.

Second, an update to the procedures would be implemented as follows:

  • When the AIP is sent to Special Council for Administrative Review, the topic or AIP in Discourse is moved from AIP Drafts to Administrative Review.
  • If the topic or AIP is approved to vote, it will move to Live AIPs at the next weekly release.
  • If the topic or AIP is returned for reconstruction, it will move to Withdrawn AIPs.
  • If the topic or AIP is returned for clarification, it will move back to AIP Drafts for the author to answer the questions from the Special Council.

The Ape Foundation is expected to implement these changes to


The new category and process shall be implemented as soon as this AIP is passed.

Overall Cost

This is a procedural and process update; there are no direct expenses to implement this AIP.


This seems like a nice workflow upgrade and I’d support it.


This will be a helpful step in understanding where a proposal is at in the process. It’s not a complete fix for everything, but it certainly will offer more assurances to the authors, & they’ll have a better idea of where they stand, and how to plan ahead for snapshot voting. Good proposal!


This is a good way to monitor the process by admins. It’s better than the current black-box reviewing process, but I think we still need some timeline rules to make sure AIPs are getting responses on time. AIPs can still be in the “Administrative Review” session for months without any updates. But again, it’s still better than not having it so I’ll support it.


A simple yet necessary addition to the process flow. It’s all about transparency. I support this, and I’m always stoked to see small pieces helping to address the bigger picture all coming to light from new contributors. Thanks for putting this forward.


AIP-102 and AIP-144 attempt to address some of these concerns as well. Adding more transparency to the proposal process.


Thanks so much for this proposal. I think this is a great step in the right direction for better transparency!


I agree - hoping to add small, iterative, compounding gains that are clear and benefit the community


Thanks for your support @ChrisL - trying to make one small gain at a time


This is definitely a change for good.

I see many complaints, from prominent members of the community, saying their proposals are ‘magically’ held back when members of the team have competing proposals in the works - this may even be illegal, being that we don’t know the true extent of the breaches.

My point is this, without better controls those in power, knowingly or unknowingly, have lost focus and are engaging in behaviours not fitting of this DAO’s leaders. We need to enforce more structure and controls to stop this.

I’d also love if someone could provide a simple visual of the teams, their roles and responsibilities and points of contact for the community, so members can complain and raise concern when and wherever needed to the correct parties until we can figure this all out correctly.


Machibigbrother complained of corruption - he noticed certain AIPs were getting retweets but his approved AIPs were always missed off [personally I had no love for machi at the time and dismissed it as nonsense, but has to be same rule for all surely, we either retweet all approved AIPs or none at all, and if we chose which then how are they chosen? on what criteria? this is wrong, giving free reign like this].

Concerns raised regarding the articles written on AIPs, suppose to be impartial explination and info pieces, yet when it suits the author, ie they are part of a competing proposal, a “HIT PIECE” is written, with accusations, insinuations and scaremongering - again, I have no horse in the race but we must stamp this crap out.

Apecomms - a small twitter with around 1,000 followers that’s been running a few months, that in itself shows you what little traction it has, yet consistently apecoin twitter has been retweeting its posts since early November - again I have no concern with retweets but we have to ask why so many for this particulary relatively unknown feed? Answer is maybe clear, apecomms team have heavy connections/relations with those in charge of integral parts of our news distribution and they are pushing an agenda to gain themselves.

We need proper rules and structures in place to stop this. We need impartial and neutral tweets, articles and anything else related to be monitored unfortunately. If apecoin tweets one active AIP, it should tweet them all, treating each with the same dignity it deserves, impartially fair at all times, above reproach.

Look I’m sorry if people think oh its just Furious again on one - just take a look, we are all better than this, personally I cant wait for the new council to be appointed, but will it fix this? I dont think so, and before it gets too out of hand we need to do something about it. I will never have an AIP for funding as I am not a creative, but I will try and help the community talk more about these kinds of things because I care and am very passionate about seeing people try to systematically plunder the monies set out for growth and I will continue to call out all of those who just see the DAO as a massive cash cow and collude to help themselves. We are trying to create something great, a strong legacy for the next waves of apecoin holders, however, I am sad to say we fall very very short of this ideal.

I am so glad others are seeing the issues we have within our DAO setup and with its ‘business procedures’ lets call them.

I have tried to reply to this post and my content was flagged and hidden, possibly because I pointed out where I felt this may help and gave examples of the issues currently, which I think some people didn’t want discussed.

I am 100% in favor of more controls, structure and checks surrounding those in power and their methods. I wish it was not necessary, but I am in no doubt it is essential if we want to have any chance of success.

Hi @btang,

Your topic will be automatically closing in less than 24 hours. Are you content with the feedback received, or do you wish to extend community discussion for a further 7 days?

If we do not hear from you within 48 hours after your topic closes, your topic will be moved straight to the AIP Draft process.

We look forward to hearing from you.


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

Thank you @btang for your ideas and the ApeCoin DAO community for the thoughtful discussions. A moderator will get in touch with the author to draft the AIP in the appropriate template. Once the AIP is drafted and meets all the DAO-approved guidelines, the proposal will be posted on Snapshot for live official voting at: Snapshot

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


Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@btang has completed editing their AIP Idea to be their AIP Draft.

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.

Kind Regards,


Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

We have no questions for @btang. This AIP is now with the Special Council for Administrative Review.

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.

Kind Regards,


I know you feel a certain way about the ApeComms team… but they’re being retweeted by ApeCoin because they’re actually providing factual, grounded $APE-related news and content the degree to which no one else is. Your concern with the follower count of the group should be seen more as a product of the current state of Twitter (where sh!tposting and controversy gain vastly more traction than actual news) than anything else. They provide a very real service to the community, and currently on a pro bono basis. With all due respect, I see your vitriol for this team as incredibly misdirected.

1 Like

You personally know some of the APECOMMS team, this is a fact. Which means you are far too personally connected to them and are unable to form an unbiased and objective view point.

The big bad mean Apecomms is in @furiousanger FURIOUSANGERS DAO. :ghost: :jack_o_lantern: They’ve hosted ~30 council nominees & probably 35 twitter spaces over the last 5 months. Even worse, they’re talking to all the builders in the space each week, oh and more scary, giving free proposal consultations to all new AIP proposers. Oooo. Scary mean mean Apecomms getting their live spaces retweeted. :jack_o_lantern: :ghost:

…It’s nearly harrassment at this point @furiousanger. You’re not involved w/ ecosystem, not attending spaces or conversations, and you’ve come here to yell, holler, not build. Does holding an $APE token guarantee access to these forums? We will find out if you continue w/ your poor behaviour.